The court emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delay, stating that sufficient cause should be interpreted broadly to serve justice, rather than strictly adhering to procedural technicalities.

ORDER :

1. Heard Ms. Zainab Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, finally. None for the respondents despite of service of notice.

2. Since all the Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of C.M.A. No. 19 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (Court below), the matters are argued, heard and decided by way of this Common Order.

3. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 06.02.2024 in I.A. Nos.1808 to 1810 of 2023 and C.M.A. No. 19 of 2020 respectively on the file of the Court below, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners seeking (i) condonation of delay of 704 days in filing the applications to bring the legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record, (ii) to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the deceased and (iii) to bring legal representatives of the deceased on record, were rejected by the Court below. Consequent to dismissal of the aforesaid applications, the Court below also dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 2020.

4. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 herein and father of remaining petitioners i.e. appellant in C.M.A. No. 19 of 2020 before the Court below filed O.S. No. 5 of 2020 along with application in I.A. No. 3 of 2020 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and the said Court rejected the said application by order dated 05.08.2020. Aggrieved, the original plaintiff i.e. the appellant before the Court below preferred appeal on 29.09.2020, which was registered as C.M.A. No. 19 of 2020 on the file of Court below. On 29.09.2020, the Court below granted injunction in favour of the appellant. On 15.12.2021, the appellant/original petitioner died. The present petitioners preferred applications for condonation delay, setting aside abatement and substitution of legal representatives on 17.02.2023. The application for condone delay was rejected by impugned order dated 06.02.2024 in I.A. No. 1808 of 2023 by the Court below. Since delay was not condoned, the other applications filed for substitution of legal representatives and setting aside abatement were also dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 shows that the petitioners' argument was that the petitioners counsel did not pursue the matter. In that case, as per Court below's observation, the petitioners were supposed to be vigil while prosecuting the matter. If their counsel did not file substitution of legal representatives' petition, the petitioners could have changed their advocate. Apart from this, since day-to-days delay is not explained, the application was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this aspect has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107. The principles laid down in the said judgment were consistently followed by the Supreme Court in the catena of cases N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao, (2002) 3 SCC 195, Raheem Shah vs. Govind Singh and Rafiq vs. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 1978.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. None entered appearance for the respondents, despite service of notices.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra) opined as under:

“3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaning- full manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiab