Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 27346
BENCH AT NAGPUR
Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J
Shri Rajesh s/o Namdeorao Badwaik – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sunita Wd/o Ajay Bhole – Respondent
Civil Revision Application No.55/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sunil Manohar, Shri A.S. Manohar
For the Respondents: Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Shri M.A. Deo
Litigants must demonstrate sufficient cause for delays in filing, particularly regarding financial claims; delays without credible explanations can invalidate applications for condonation.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIII Rule 15A - Condonation of delay in filing Court Fees - Application allowed by trial court due to alleged financial hardship - Appellant contends that such delay is not maintainable once time has expired. The trial court's permission to condone the delay for payment of fees is challenged on grounds of ineligibility and evidence insufficiency. (Para 28)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Sufficient cause for condonation - Parameters for assessing sufficient cause explained, focusing on diligence and credibility in litigant's claims for financial inability. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a defendant, contests the order allowing the plaintiff to pay court fees long after the original pleadings were filed. The plaintiffs claimed financial hardship but had received substantial amounts in the interim.
Findings of Court:
The order allowing condonation of delay was quashed, sending the case back for fresh consideration due to insufficient evidence of financial hardship.
Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown for the delay; whether the trial court properly assessed the plaintiff's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasizes that litigants must act diligently and present credible evidence; mere hardship is insufficient. Previous orders to remit fees emphasize compliance within timelines.
Result: The Civil Revision Application is partly allowed; the trial court's order is quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on the partition suit and initial denial of indigent status. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding ineligibility of condonation based on delay. (Para 6 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. financial claims and timelines for paying court fees. (Para 11 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. criteria for assessing sufficient cause and failure to provide evidence. (Para 21 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. The present Revision Application is filed by the Applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 12/12/2019 in M.J.C. No. 230/2018 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur allowing the Application for condonation of delay in filing the Application under Order XXXIII Rule 15A read with Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code.
3. The facts giving rise for filing of the present Revision Application are as under:-
The Applicant and the Non-Applicants are real brothers and sisters. On 04/04/2006, the Non-Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 (original Plaintiffs) had filed a Suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur along with an Application to sue as indigent persons. Vide order dated 22/04/2008, the learned Trial Court dismissed the Application for suing as indigent persons on the ground that Non-Applicant No.1 was running a Computer Institute by name S.B. Computers. The learned Trial Court also observed that the Non-Applicant No. 1 was an income tax payee. The husband of the Non-Applicant No. 1 owned immovable property at Bhandara. In this backdrop, the learned Trial Court recorded a finding that the Non-Applicant No. 1 has sufficient income to pay the requisite Court Fee stamp and rejected the Application of Plaintiffs for suing as the indigent persons and directed that in case, if the Non-Applicant Nos.1 and 2 desired to file a Suit for partition and separate possession, they should pay the requisite Court Fees within one month from the date of the order dated 22/04/2008.
4. The Non-Applicant No.1 filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 228/2008 before the learned District Judge-9, Nagpur challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 22/04/2008. The learned Appellate Court, vide order dated 03/03/2010, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Non-Applicant No.1. The learned Appellate Court found that the present Non-Applicant No.1 concealed the material facts in her Application, and that although she had stated that she had closed down her Computer Institute, she had not produced any document showing that the Institute had been closed. The Appellate Court did not extend the time granted to the Non-Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 for payment of Court Fees. The Non-Applicant Nos.1 and 2 did not pay the requisite Court Fees, hence the Suit for partition and separate possession of the joint family property was not registered.
5. On 16/03/2018, after a period of almost eight years from the date of dismissal of Misc. Civil Appeal No.228/2008, the Non- Applicant No.1 filed an Application under Order XXXIII Rule 15-A read with Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of permission to pay Court Fees, along with an Application for condonation of delay in filing Court Fees. The principal ground raised in both the Applications was that the Non-Applicant No.1 was unable to pay requisite Court Fees due to her weak financial condition. It was stated that the husband of the Non-Applicant No.1 had passed away due to brain hemorrhage and considerable expenses had been incurred in his treatment. Therefore, a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- had been obtained from relatives for medical treatment of her husband. Another ground raised was that the Non-Applicant No.1 was required to pay towards the education of her two children. It is stated in the Application that between 2015 and 2017, some Life Insurance Corporation Policies in the name of the Non-Applicant No.1 were matured and due to this, the Non- Applicant No.1 is now in a position to pay the requisite Court Fees. Vide order dated 12/12/2019, the
