A party cannot be held negligent for failing to follow a suit when the court failed to issue mandatory notice of transfer, and such delay is condonable if the party acted diligently after discovering the transfer.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 and Section 5 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Duty of court to notify parties on transfer of suit - A court is obligated to issue notice to parties when a suit is transferred from one court to another on account of change in pecuniary jurisdiction, even in the absence of a specific statutory provision - Failure to do so relieves the litigant of the blame for not following up the case. (Paras 9, 10)

(B) Condonation of delay - The Supreme Court, while dismissing a Special Leave Petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court with a direction that delay/laches should not be raised and the request should be adjudicated in accordance with law - Such a direction is binding and must be given due weight. (Para 11)

(C) Sufficient cause - The litigant is not required to be vigilant where the court has failed to notify the transfer and the original court’s website only shows the case as “unwanted” - Delay in filing restoration and condonation applications after discovering the transfer cannot be held to be fatal if the petitioner acted diligently thereafter. (Paras 12-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit in the High Court (C.S. No.1049 of 2008) which was subsequently transferred to the City Civil Court due to enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S. No.9269 of 2010. The petitioner was not notified of the transfer. The suit was dismissed for default on 12.04.2011. In March 2021, the petitioner, suspecting foul play, engaged a new lawyer and discovered the transfer and dismissal. He filed an application for condonation of delay of 3704 days (I.A. No.1 of 2021) on 07.07.2021. The trial court dismissed the application. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court, which dismissed the SLP with liberty to approach the High Court. The present Civil Revision Petition was filed challenging the dismissal order.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that (i) it is mandatory for the transferring court to issue notice to parties upon transfer; (ii) the petitioner was not put on notice and cannot be blamed for lack of vigilance; (iii) the Supreme Court’s direction precluded the High Court from raising delay/laches against the petitioner; (iv) the delay between discovering the dismissal and filing the application was adequately explained; and (v) the trial court’s order dismissing the condonation application was perverse.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner showed sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 3704 days? (ii) Whether the trial court’s order was perverse? (iii) Whether the petitioner was diligent in following up the suit?

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant cannot be held negligent for failing to follow up a suit when the court failed to issue mandatory notice of transfer and the original court’s case status was misleading. The Supreme Court’s liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the High Court militates against raising laches. The trial court’s dismissal of the condonation application without considering these factors is perverse and liable to be set aside.

Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed. The order dated 21.08.2024 in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in O.S. No.9269 of 2010 passed by the learned Judge XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai is set aside. The trial court shall decide the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC expeditiously and in accordance with law within four weeks.

ORDER

The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The present revision petition has been filed, aggrieved by the dismissal of the Application filed by the petitioner, seeking condonation of delay of 3704 days in seeking to restore the suit which was dismissed for default on 12.04.2011.

2.I have heard Mr.Sathish Murthi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.R.Venkatraman, learned counsel for M/s.TATVA Legal, for the first and second respondents and Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed a suit before this Court in C.S. No.1049 of 2008 and even before this Court, the defendants had entered appearance through Counsel. The petitioner was not put on notice about the transfer of the suit to the City Civil Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in March 2021, the petitioner contending that he did not receive proper information from his lawyers, he engaged another lawyer to enquire about the status of the suit and he was shocked to find that the High Court website reflected the suit as an “unwanted case”. He would further state the suit has been transferred to the City Civil Court and re- numbered as O.S. No.9269 of 2010 and he was never informed by his Counsel or by the Court, subsequent to the transfer and therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that he was totally in dark and only after the alternate Counsel digging up the case records, all these details came to light. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the petitioner has thereafter filed I.A. No.1 of 2021 on 07.07.2021 and also took out I.A. No.2 of 2021 seeking condonation of delay of 3704 days. Side by side, the petitioner also gave a complaint against his Advocate to the Bar Council of India in Revision Petition No.37 of 2023. The learned counsel states that despite showing sufficient cause, the Trial Court has dismissed the Application for condonation of delay.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.Dairy.No. 50529 of 2024 and on 07.04.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to seek relief before this Court, by filing appropriate petition and therefore, the present revision petition has thereafter been filed, challenging the dismissal of the condone delay application. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there has been no deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the petitioner and further he is aged 77 years and despite his age and health complications, he has been following up the matter and when he was never put on notice by his Counsel or by the Court that the suit has been transferred from the High Court to the City Civil Court, he should not be prejudiced. He would state that the Trial Court has erroneously proceeded to dismiss the application on irrelevant considerations. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

5. Per contra, Mr.R.Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the suit was dismissed on 21.08.2024 before the City Civil Court and further submit that the petitioner is admittedly, a tech-savvy person and from his own affidavit, it can be seen that the petitioner has been corresponding with his Counsel through E.mails and text messages and in such circumstances, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner being the litigant, he should have been diligent in following up the case and he cannot blame the Counsel and the learned counsel also relies on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Moddus Media Private Limited Vs. M/s.Scone Exhibition Private Limited in RFT No.497 of 2017 dated 18.05.2017, where the Delhi High Court held that the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in a Court of law against him, or initiated a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Mr.Justice P.B. BALAJIMUTHACHEN THOMAS CHACKO – AppellantVersusM/s ALACRITY HOUSING LTD – Respondent

A party cannot be held negligent for failing to follow a suit when the court failed to issue mandatory notice of transfer, and such delay is condonable if the party acted diligently after discovering the transfer.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P.B. BALAJI
MUTHACHEN THOMAS CHACKO – Appellant
Versus
M/s ALACRITY HOUSING LTD – Respondent