Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Longjam Bijoy Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shrimati Longjam (O) Thoibi Devi & Ors. - Respondents
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 40 of 2014 with CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 48 of 2015
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Trial Court Procedure - Restoration of Suit - Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, Sufficient Cause, Delay Condonation - G.P. Srivastava Vs. R.K. Raizada and others [(2000) 3 SCC 54], Smt. Lachi Tewari and others Vs. Director of Land Records and others [1984 (Supp) SCC 431], Lala Mata Din Vs. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770], N. Balaji Vs. Virendra Singh and others [AIR 2005 SC 1638 = (2004) 8 SCC 312], Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others [(1987) 2 SCC 107] - The court discussed the scope of 'sufficient cause' in the context of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and emphasized the need to demonstrate bonafides and establish 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance. The court highlighted the importance of not penalizing a defendant for the lax and careless prosecution of the case, and the need to consider the conduct of the party throughout the proceedings. The judgment also emphasized the need for substantial and effective justice, and the elastic nature of the expression 'sufficient cause' to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for declaration of title in relation to homestead land, cancellation of mutation, and permanent injunction. The suit faced multiple dismissals and restoration attempts due to non-prosecution and technical lapses. The plaintiffs sought restoration of the suit and LR application after the death of the first plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit had remained practically frozen since its filing in 2006, and the plaintiffs' conduct reflected utter laxity in pursuing the litigation. The court emphasized the need to demonstrate bonafides and establish 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance, and highlighted the technical lapses and defects in the miscellaneous cases that reflected poorly upon the applicants and their counsel. The court concluded that there were no grounds to show further indulgence to the petitioners and dismissed both Civil Revision Petitions.
Issues: Non-prosecution of the suit, restoration of LR application, delay condonation, technical lapses and defects in the miscellaneous cases, and the conduct of the plaintiffs and their counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The need to demonstrate bonafides and establish 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance, the elastic nature of the expression 'sufficient cause' to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice, and the importance of not penalizing a defendant for the lax and careless prosecution of the case.
Final Decision: Both the Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. Original Suit No. 24 of 2006, renumbered as Original Suit No. 51 of 2011, on the file of the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Manipur East, was filed on 06.11.2006. This suit was filed by Longjam Bijoy Singh, Longjam Ibohal Singh and Longjam Brojendro Singh against Keisham Irabot Singh and Lairikyengbam (N) Tourangbam (O) Babikarani @ Veda Devi, seeking declaration of their title in relation to the suit schedule homestead land; for cancellation of mutation; and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs or otherwise causing injury in relation to the suit schedule land. The suit schedule land is an extent of .0486 hectares in Patta No. 42/490(old)/767(new) in Dag No. 6039 situated at Keishamthong Elangbam Leikai, Imphal.
The written statement was filed by the defendants in the suit on 16.02.2007. The temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs in Judl. Misc. Case No. 148 of 2008 was rejected by the Trial Court on 30.06.2008. Issues were framed by the Trial Court on 16.08.2008. Thereafter, no steps seem to have been taken for commencing the trial and the suit itself came to be dismissed on 30.06.2010 for non-prosecution. The restoration petition in Judl. Misc. Case No. 154 of 2010 filed on 29.07.2010 was allowed on payment of costs, vide order dated 03.03.2011. The suit was again dismissed for default on 08.11.2011 and was once again restored on 31.12.2011 on payment of costs.
2. While so, Longjam Bijoy Singh, the first plaintiff, died on 08.03.2012. His legal representatives, viz., his widow, 2 sons and 2 daughters, filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 73 of 2012 seeking to be brought on record. This application was filed on 20.04.2012. However, it was dismissed on 27.04.2012 for non-appearance. On the same day, the suit was again dismissed for default.
Judl. Misc. Case No. 117 of 2012 was filed on 23.05.2012 for restoration of the suit. This application was dismissed for default on 17.01.2013. Judl. Misc. Case No. 30 of 2013 was filed on 19.01.2013 seeking restoration of Judl. Misc. Case No. 117 of 2012.
As regards the dismissal of the LR application in Judl. Misc. Case No. 73 of 2012, applications in Judl. Misc. Case Nos. 479 and 480 of 2013 were filed by the widow and children of late Longjam Bijoy Singh only on 09.07.2013. By way of Judl. Misc. Case No. 479 of 2013, they sought condonation of the delay on their part in filing a restoration application. Significantly, the number of days delay was not mentioned in the application. Judl. Misc. Case No. 480 of 2013 was filed by them for restoration of the LR application in Judl. Misc. Case No. 73 of 2012.
3. On 13.06.2014, the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. I, Manipur East, dismissed all three miscellaneous cases. The widow and children of late Longjam Bijoy Singh, the first plaintiff, filed CRP No. 40 of 2014 assailing the order dated 13.06.2014 passed in Judl. Misc. Case Nos.479 and 480 of 2013. Longjam Ibohal Singh and Longjam Brojendro Singh, the other two plaintiffs in the suit, filed CRP No. 48 of 2015 against the order dated 13.06.2014 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 30 of 2013.
4. Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners in both the CRPs; and Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the respondents therein.
5. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel, would argue that the Trial Court ought not to have been hyper-technical in its approach while dealing with the subject applications. He would assert that procedure is only the hand-maid of justice and not its mistress and, therefore, the Trial Court should have been more lenient while considering the miscellaneous cases. He would further assert that the failure of the learned counsel to be present on time is a mistake attributable to him and that the parties should not be punished for such a mistake on the part of their counsel. He would place reliance on case law in support of his contentions.
In G.P. Srivastava Vs. R.K. Raizada and others
The judgment emphasizes the need to demonstrate bonafides and establish 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance, and highlights the elastic nature of the expression 'sufficient cause' to enable the cou....
Litigants are not penalized for their Advocate's negligence; restoration of a suit can be granted based on demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The condonation of delay in restoring a civil suit for specific performance must be based on sufficient cause, and an exorbitant and inordinate delay without such cause can lead to the quashing of th....
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant may not justify condoning the delay.
An assignee of the rights and benefits of the deceased plaintiff's legal heirs is a proper and necessary party to be impleaded in the suit proceedings under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC.
Litigants must take responsibility for their legal representation; negligent conduct by an advocate does not negate a party's obligation to remain vigilant about their legal proceedings.
Courts can consider merits alongside delay in restoration petitions under CPC to promote justice over technicalities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
