ORDER:

Defendant in the suit filed the above revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 02.08.2019 in E.A.No.194 of 2019 in E.P.No.130 of

2006 in O.S.No.33 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. Revision petitioner/J.Dr filed E.A.No.194 of 2019 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 3,540 days in representing the petition.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the execution application it was contended inter alia that the decree holder filed suit O.S.No.33 of 2000 for recovery of amount and the suit was decreed. Thereafter, E.P.No.130 of 2006 was filed and the property was put to auction. It was further contended that the J.Dr deposited certain amounts pursuant to the order dated 10.06.2016 in CRP No.4032 of 2016. The auction purchaser/2nd respondent in the present revision petition obtained an order from the executing court regarding delivery of property. Further, she is ready to deposit balance amount along with penalty at 5% on the sale amount.

4. The affidavit does not indicate as to what application was filed to condone the delay of 3540 days. By order dated 02.08.2019, the lower court dismissed the same as delivery warrant was executed E.A.No.194 of 2019 and thus it become infructuous. Eventually, E.A was closed. Assailing the same, revision is filed with delay of 1062 days.

5. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

6. The point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether petitioner assigned proper reasons to condone the delay of 1062 days in filing the revision?”

7. While considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court must see whether the delay is inordinate or delay is few days and that reasons assigned are valid and cogent. Party seeking condonation of delay needs to explain the delay properly, the grounds which are reasonable and plausible.

8. In Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Ors.1 after referring to earlier case law, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraphs 24 and 25 as under;

“We may state that even if the term “sufficient cause” has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to

1 (2010) 8 SCC 685

introduce the concept of “reasonableness” as it is understood in its general connotation.

The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.”

9. In Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai2, the two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statues, the courts can

2 (2012) 5 SCC 157

neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the costs.

What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix