IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that a sufficient cause must be established for condoning delays under the Limitation Act, and that the discretion to condone such delays is not to be exercised lightly.

ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2024 in I.A.No. 220 of 2022 in O.S.No. 61 of 2018 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Trial Court’), the petitioners/defendants have preferred the present Revision to set aside the impugned order, wherein the petition filed by them under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the revision petitioners to file the present revision, are that the petitioners/defendants have filed I.A.No. 220 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1393 days in filing set aside petition. The reason assigned by the petitioners/defendants for the said delay is on 27.09.2018 when the suit was coming up for appearance of the defendants, the defendant No. 1 was suffering from ill health in covid-pandemic and she being lonely lady could not attend the Court. On the other hand, the respondent/plaintiff filed counter mainly contending that when the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No. 7/2019 for execution of decree and deposited remaining balance sale consideration into the court, the petitioners/defendants appeared before the Court and filed the petition to condone the huge delay of 1393 days and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. The learned Trial Court after considering the rival contentions has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants have filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.

4. Now the point for determination is whether the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is in proper perspective or liable to be set aside?

5. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of revision.

6. As can be seen from the record, originally the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No. 185/A1 situated in the limits of Ramapur Village of Kollapur Mandal and to declare the registered sale deed executed by petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2/defendant No. 2 as null, void and not binding on the respondent/plaintiff and also for recovery of possession in respect of suit schedule property against the petitioners/defendants. It is not the case of the petitioners/defendants that summons/notices were not served on them. The suit was posted to 27.09.2018 for appearance of the defendants, who failed to attend the Court on the said date. Subsequently the trial Court passed an exparte decree on 29.11.2018 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The only reason assigned by the defendants before the trial Court for their non appearance on 27.09.2018 is that petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 1 was suffering from ill health in Carona pandemic situations and due to family problems.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the initial cases of COVID-19 pandemic in India were reported in and around the year 2020 and whereas the suit was posted for appearance of the defendants on 27.09.2018. Even by the time of filing the delay petition, almost two years have been passed away from the year of wiping out of covid-19 pandemic from India. Thus, the date fixed for appearance of the defendants before the trial Court i.e., 27.09.2018 is far away from the date of spread of covid-19 pandemic in India. Even the trial Court Judge rightly observed at paragraph No. 10 of the impugned orders that to the knowledge of entire world at large, covid-19 situations in India arose from March, 2020 and first lockdown was announced on 25.03.2020 by the Government, hence, it is glaring on record that the ground taken by the counsel for the petitioners/defendants cannot be accepted as true and correct.

8. It is not even the case of the petitioners/defendants that the