Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, particularly in cases involving substantive property rights, and discretionary orders of trial courts should not be interfered with unless arbitrary or perverse.

The Court made the following ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/1st plaintiff challenging the order dated 20.07.2023 passed in IA No.10 of 2021 in OS No.460 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereby the trial Court condoned the delay of 2076 days in representing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the ex parte decree.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present revision are that respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants are father and son. The petitioner and 3rd respondent herein/plaintiffs filed OS No.460 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties along with consequential reliefs of declaration of title and also to declare the sale deed dated 12.03.2009 as a forged document. In the said suit, the defendants failed to appear and consequently an ex parte decree was passed on 30.12.2014.

3. On coming to know about the ex parte decree, the defendants filed an application, vide SR No.493 of 2015 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and to permit them to contest the suit. However, the said application was returned by the trial Court on 26.03.2015 with an objection that the advocate appearing for the defendants had not filed vakalat.

4. According to the defendants, 1st defendant underwent open heart surgery and due to his serious health condition they were unable to meet their advocate and comply with the office objection within the stipulated time. Consequently, there occurred a delay of 2076 days in representing the said application along with vakalat. Therefore, they filed IA No.10 of 2021 seeking condonation of the said delay.

5. The trial Court, after considering the explanation offered by the defendants and taking note of the medical condition of 1st defendant, allowed the application by order dated 20.07.2023 and condoned the delay. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by 1st plaintiff.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the material available on record.

7. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court committed any illegality or material irregularity in condoning the delay of 2076 days in representing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

8. It is well settled that the expression “sufficient cause” appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Courts are required to adopt a pragmatic approach while considering applications for condonation of delay, particularly when refusal to condone the delay would result in denial of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits, particularly when substantive property rights of the parties are involved.

9. In the present case, the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was in fact filed within time but the same was returned by the trial Court with an office objection regarding filing of vakalat. The delay occurred in representing the returned application. The explanation offered by the defendants is that 1st defendant had undergone open heart surgery and due to his serious health condition they were unable to contact their counsel and comply with the objection in time. The trial Court found the said explanation to be plausible and acceptable.