A liberal interpretation of delay provisions under the Limitation Act is necessary to prevent parties from being rendered remediless, especially when genuine hardships are demonstrated.

ORDER:

The present is a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 03.10.2024 in I.A.No.1691 of 2022 in ASSR.No.10411 of 2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Ms. M.Venkata Padmaja, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Vide the impugned order; the District Judge has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC along with ASSR.No.10441 of 2022.

4. The facts of the case are that a Suit was filed by the plaintiff i.e. the husband of the petitioner No.2 and father of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 seeking declaration of title and grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Suit schedule property which was registered as O.S.No.1869 of 2015. The said Suit got dismissed on 07.04.2022. The plaintiff i.e. the petitioner No.1 who was suffering from cancer had expired. After that the Section 5 petition was filed along with the first appeal preferred by the petitioners.

5. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Counsel who was engaged by the plaintiffs did not effectively contest the case and halfway through he started neglecting the proceedings. He did not cross-examine the defence witnesses and the arguments were heard only that from the defendants’ point of view, the plaintiffs’ arguments were not recorded in the absence of the Counsel engaged and thereby the Suit got dismissed on 17.04.2022. The reason for absence of the plaintiffs during the relevant period was due to ill- health of the petitioner No.1 and also that he was a resident of Miriyalguda town in Nalgonda district which was quite far from the place where the case was pending and the plaintiffs were solely depending on the Counsel engaged by them.

6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first appeal along with the Section 5 petition was filed with a delay of 124 days i.e. just around four months’ time. It was further submitted that upon dismissal of the Suit, if the petitioners are not permitted to challenge the order on merits in an appeal, the plaintiffs would be left remediless and in the process there will be a substantial prejudice and detriment to the interest of the plaintiffs over the Suit schedule property. Therefore, the Appellate Court ought to have taken a more pragmatic approach while deciding the Section 5 petition filed along with the first appeal.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of records, particularly taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that any order rendering a person remediless would be too harsh a decision to be taken. The provision in Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been prescribed enabling the Courts to consider the genuine grievance and hardship that the party has faced for not approaching the Court within the stipulated period of time. The proceedings under Section 5 has to be taken with a more liberal view and with a more pragmatic approach. The parties should not be choked to death only because they had not availed their legal remedy within the stipulated period.

8. Moreover, in the event if plausible explanation has been made out and the reasons assigned are found to be genuine and on account of the parties being helpless for not having availed the right to appeal within a reasonable period of time, the Court ought to have taken a more lenient view and should allow the same even if it were to be after imposing some costs.

9. The facts of the case would reveal that first of all there is delay of just around four months’ time i.e. 124 days and the reasons for the delay is also that the Counsel engaged by the petitioners before the Trial Court had