The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of condonation of delay should be applied with caution, and delay should not be condoned in cases of concocted reasons, negligence, substantial injustice to the opposite party, and unending uncertainty.

ORDER :

1. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam in I.A.No.1842 of 2013 in I.A.No.996 of 2007 in O.S.No.240 of 2004, dated 11.02.2016.

2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. A perusal of the entire material that is produced before this Court reveals and discloses the following factual scenario:-

The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.240 of 2004 for specific performance of contract. The said suit was dismissed for default on 02.11.2005. Subsequently, the revision petitioner/plaintiff moved an Interlocutory Application seeking the Court to set-aside the said dismissal order. Since the said application was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, another application vide I.A.No.996 of 2007 was filed seeking the Court to condone the delay in filing the said petition for restoration of the suit. I.A.No.996 of 2007 was also dismissed for default as the revision petitioner failed to deposit the required process for service of notice upon the respondent. Later, the revision petitioner moved another application for restoration of the said Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A.No.996 of 2007. Even the said application was not filed within time and therefore, he moved another Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A.No.1842 of 2013 to condone the delay of 1736 days in filing the said application for restoration of I.A.No.996 of 2007. The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, vide order dated 11.02.2016, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

4. Making his submission that the Court below ought to have condoned the delay and that it ought not to have adopted a stringent approach, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner was not aware that the suit was dismissed for default and he came to know about the said fact after considerable period and therefore, he filed an application to condone the delay in filing restoration petition, but due to his misfortune, the said application was also dismissed for default and then he moved an application for restoring the said application and as there was delay, he filed I.A.No.1842 of 2013 to condone the delay of 1736 days. But the said delay was not condoned and thereby, the revision petitioner was put to irreparable loss and hardship. Proceeding with his submission and emphasizing that the Court was under an obligation to condone the delay and that the cases have to be disposed of on merits but not on technical grounds, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between N. BALAKRISHNAN Vs. M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3222, wherein the Hon’ble Court at Paras 10 to 13 of the order held as follows:-

“10. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause.

11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux o time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus