Condonation of delay requires proof of sufficient cause; a liberal approach cannot ignore inordinate delay, lack of diligence, or established dilatory tactics. Discretionary orders must be based on objective, reasoned satisfaction rather than arbitrary preference, failing which they are susceptible to interference in revision.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - "Sufficient cause" - Concept thereof - Court's discretion - Exercise of jurisdiction.

(B) Civil Procedure - Revisional jurisdiction - Exercise of judicial discretion - Requirement of recording reasons - Arbitrary exercise of power as ground for interference.

(C) Appellate jurisdiction - Discretion to condone delay is guided by rules of reason and justice, not arbitrary preference. (Paras 8.1, 8.4, and 9.1)

Facts of the case:
The litigation involved multiple failed attempts to restore a dismissed appeal, with successive applications being rejected for lack of prosecution or failure to remove defects. A final restoration application was filed after an inordinate delay. The lower court allowed the application for condonation of delay, citing a liberal approach in the interest of justice. This order was challenged in revision, alleging that the lower court ignored the history of repeated, unexplained defaults and the lack of diligence.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower court failed to exercise its discretion judicially. It ignored the historical context of repeated defaults and the lack of diligence shown by the party. It was held that while a liberal, justice-oriented approach is favored, it cannot be used to bypass the requirement of showing "sufficient cause" or to reward dilatory tactics. The lower court's failure to record specific reasons for its satisfaction regarding the delay rendered the order legally unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the lower court's discretion was exercised correctly and whether the "liberal approach" permitted the condonation of inordinate, unexplained delay without establishing "sufficient cause."

Ratio Decidendi: Discretion to condone delay must be guided by objective reason and not be arbitrary. A court must provide reasoned satisfaction regarding "sufficient cause." When a lower court ignores a history of persistent failure to act diligently and repetitive dismissals for non-prosecution, the absence of judicial reasoning makes the order vulnerable, warranting interference in revisionary proceedings.

Result: Revision application allowed; impugned order set aside and matter remitted for fresh adjudication.

ORDER

Being aggrieved by Order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, wherein the delay in filing application for restoration of CMA No.13 of 2018, being CMA No.12 of 2021, has been condoned and said CMA No.12 of 2021 is directed to be taken up for hearing, this civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

“The petitioner therefore prays that your Lordship‟s may be graciously be pleased to admit this case, call for the records from the courts below and after hearing the parties set aside the Order dated 28.02.2023 under Annexure-1 and thus dismiss the CMA No.12 of 2021 on the ground of limitation.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in duty bound ever pray.”

Facts:

2. Facts, as adumbrated by the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, reveal that Late Prasanna Kumar Singhdeo, the predecessor of the present opposite party Nos.1 to 5, had filed Title Appeal No.20 of 1996 and the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna on 21.10.2009 with the following Order:

“Advocate for respondent 4 (Pramod Kumar Singh) filed hazira. No steps taken by the appellants (Prasanna Kumar Singh). The appellants are absent on calls. Hence the appeal is dismissed for default.”

2.1. Thereafter, the present opposite party Nos.1 to 5 (four sons and wife of Prasanna Kumar Singhdeo) filed CMA No.20 of 2009 under Order 41, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) on 28.10.2009 for restoration of Title Appeal No.20 of 1996. Said CMA No.20 of 2009 came to be dismissed for default on 24.12.2015 on the ground that the defects were not removed since 2009.

2.2. Again, the opposite party Nos.1 to 5 filed CMA No.4 of 2016 on 14.01.2016 under Order 41, Rule 19 of CPC for restoration of Title Appeal No.20 of 1996 suppressing the fact of filing of CMA No.20 of 2009 earlier and its dismissal on 13.07.2012 for non-removal of defects.

2.3. Thereafter, opposite party Nos.1 to 5 again filed another CMA No.26 of 2017 under Order 41, Rule 19 of CPC on 08.07.2017 for restoration of Title Appeal No.20 of 1996. Said CMA No.26 of 2017 also got dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.12.2017.

2.4. The opposite party Nos.1 to 5 filed CMA No.3 of 2018 for restoration of Title Appeal No.20 of 1996, which was also dismissed on 19.03.2018. The opposite party Nos.1 to 5 filed CMA No.13 of 2018 on 12.11.2018 for restoration of Title Appeal No.20 of 1996, which was also dismissed for default on 29.10.2019 with the following order:

“Advocate for the petitioner files a petition for time for hearing. None is present to move the petition. The petition for time stands rejected being devoid of merits and the C.M.A. is dismissed for default of petitioners.”

2.5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.10.2019, the opposite party Nos.1 to 5 filed CMP No.1466 of 2019, and this Court and while disposing of the said CMP No.1466 of 2019 passed the following Order on 17.12.2020:

“Due to outbreak of COVID 19 this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

Heard, Mr. Santosh Kumar Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner in this CMP seeks to assail the Order dated 29.10.2019 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Judge, Kalahandi in CMA No.13 of 2018 arising out of CMA No.03 of 2018, arising out of CMA No.26 of 2017, whereby he dismissed CMA No.13 of 2018 for default.

In course of hearing Mr. Samantaray learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest of justice will be best served if he files an application for restoration of CMA No.13 of 2018, which can be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the CMP is disposed of with an observation that in the event the petitioner files an application for restoration of CMA No.13 of 2018, the same shall be considered by learned District Judge, Kalahandi in accordance with law. The delay in filing the restoration application shall be construed liberally taking into consid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3776

Cases Referred (5)