The court ruled that a delay of 1755 days in filing to set aside an ex parte decree lacked sufficient cause, emphasizing the need for justifiable reasons in delay condonation applications.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order, dated 20.09.2024, passed in I.A.No.332 of 2023 in O.S.No.7 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli, wherein and whereby the application filed to condone the delay of 1755 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 29.08.2018 was dismissed.

2. It is stated that the petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.7 of 2018, which was filed by the respondents herein seeking for partition and separate possession of 2/5 th share of the respondents in the suit schedule properties and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 29.08.2018. The petitioners filed an application vide I.A.No.332 of 2023 2020 seeking the Court to condone the delay of 1755 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 29.08.2018. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order, dated 20.09.2024.

The reasons stated in the affidavit that the petitioners have engaged an advocate and were unable to consult him due to personal family problems and due to Covid-19 pandemic and other personal inconvenience.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. In view of the relief sought in this C.R.P. issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

4. Admittedly, the suit filed by the respondents is for partition and in the said suit ex-parte preliminary decree was passed on 29.08.2018. On perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed Under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the contention of the petitioners is that due to personal, family problems and due to Covid-19 pandemic and other personal inconvenience the defendants could not contact their counsel to instruct him to contest the matter. In the meanwhile, they were set ex parte and thereafter an ex parte preliminary decree was passed.

5 . The law is well settled that "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the party. In a particular case, whether explanation furnished would constitute sufficient cause or not will depend upon the facts of each case and there cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps or filing an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. But, the Courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition. In Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpuar Nafar Academy and others , (2013) 12 SCC 649 the Apex Court formulated certain guidelines in disposing of the delay condonation petitions by the Courts and the relevant paras of the said Judgment are as follows:

“ (i) xxx xxx viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the Second calls for a liberal delineation.

ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalitie