The court upheld the trial court's rejection of a delay application due to a lack of satisfactory explanation, emphasizing that condonation of delay requires strong reasons.

ORDER :

Heard Mr.P.Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.458 of 2023 in O.S.No.2120 of 2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, at Ranga Reddy District (for short the trial court).

3. Vide the impugned order, the learned trial court has rejected the I.A. filed by the petitioner/defendant Nos.2 to 8 under Section 5 seeking for restoration of his counter claim that they filed in the O.S.No.2120 of 2009 which was dismissed for default on 16.08.2016.

4. The learned trial court after due consideration of the I.A. and the submissions made by the petitioners found the explanation not to be plausible and satisfactory and therefore, rejected the said I.A. which lead to the filing of the present civil revision petition.

5. It would be relevant to take note of the contention that is reflected in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed in support of the setting aside petition filed by the petitioners for ready reference the same is reproduced herein under:

“I submit that the respondent herein filed the above suit seeking for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants No.1 to 7 and subsequently my father i.e., the defendant No.8 in the above suit and we filed out written statement along with Counter-claim and this Hon’ble Court also framed issues in the above suit and posted for trial. Subsequently the Pw-1 filed his Chief Examination affidavit and after that he did not come forward to be Cross Examined and as such this Hon’ble court dismissed the above suit for default on 16.08.2016. In fact the Pw-1 was not present in the call work and there was also no representation on behalf of the Pw-1 however our counsel only had attended the call work and after that the matter was kept in pass over and after that this Hon’ble Court ‘dismissed the suit for default’ for non-appearance of the Pw-1 while our counsel was engaged in another case in another court in the R.R.Court complex premises and as such my counsel could not be able to represent regarding Counter-Claim”.

6. The plain reading of the above gives a clear picture of the lethargic attitude on the part of the petitioners herein in not pursuing their case any further after the suit is dismissed for default on 16.08.2016.

7. The petitioners have in very categorical terms accepted the fact that they were aware of the date of proceedings fixed before the trial court on 16.08.2016 when it was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff. The absence of any representation on behalf of the plaintiff after repeat opportunity being granted the trial court has dismissed the suit for want of prosecution on 16.08.2016. If the date of hearing was known to the counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 7 before the trial court it was the responsibility of the petitioners counsel as also that of the petitioners in person to have followed up the matter either requesting the court to ensure that dismissal in default should only be confined so far as suit is concerned and not the counter claim filed by the defendants. It appears that there has been no steps whatsoever that has been taken by the petitioners herein on this part. No plausible and satisfactory explanation is reflected from the contents of the affidavit and also in the contentions putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, the period of delay in the filing of the application is that of 1623 days almost 5 years, which undisputedly is highly belated and inordinately delay with no proper explanation whatsoever.

8. In the absence of which, the trial court cannot be found fault with, in the event of the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act getting rejected by the trial court. It by now a settled position of law that condonation of delay though is