The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice and remove injustice.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the orders, dated 12.10.2017, in I.A.No.1673 of 2014 in O.S.No.373 of 2007, on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. I.A.No.1673 of 2014 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 2632 days in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘ÇPC’). The main averments of the affidavit filed in support of the application are that the petitioner/defendant No.1 has come to know about filing of the suit only on 27.03.2013 when a notice in I.A.No.348 of 2013 under Order XX Rule 18 CPC was served on her. She could not met her previous counsel either to file the counter or to take necessary steps and that because of her illiteracy, as suit summons were not served, she could not appear before the Court.

3. This application is resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs, who filed a detailed counter before the trial Court stating that false allegations are made about the ground of illiteracy, ill-health, the petitioner has failed to explain the delay. All the allegations are only scripted for the purpose of this application. In fact, the petitioner/defendant No.1 is aware of the suit proceedings and the proceedings in I.A.No.1983 of 2012, I.A.No.1984 of 2012 and I.A.No.3235 of 2007 and that there are no merits in the application. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit.

6. The 1st defendant has filed the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2632 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her. The sole contention of the petitioner is that suit summons were not served upon her and that only on 27.03.2013 when the notice in I.A.No.348 of 2013 filed under Order XX Rule 18 CPC was served on her, she came to know about the original suit and filed the present application before the trial Court.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently contends that the Court below failed to assign any reason, much less proper reason and that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. On a query posed by this Court in the course of hearing, it is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the evidence on behalf of plaintiffs is concluded and the suit is being adjourned for defendants’ evidence and also submitted that pursuant to the orders impugned, defendant No.1 was brought on record, filed written statement. Issues are settled. P.Ws.1 and 2 were also cross-examined on behalf of defendant No.1.

8. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 seeks to submit that there is no irregularity in the order impugned and in fact, pursuant to the orders impugned, the 1st defendant has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and that application is allowed. The 1st defendant has filed the written statement. Issues were settled. Thereafter evidence on behalf of plaintiffs is concluded. Defendant No.1 has cross-examined P.Ws.1 & 2. In the course of defence evidence, D.W.1 is examined and he was also cross-examined and that the defendants’ evidence is closed and the original suit stands adjourned for arguments after closure of evidence on both sides.

9. Thus, subsequent to the order impugned, much water has flown into and the impugned orders are given effect, defendant No.1 is brought on record, he has filed his written statement. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, deals with condonation of delay on showing sufficient cause. The expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act is subject to various factors.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others, (1972) 1 SCC 366 whi