Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be approached liberally and pragmatically to ensure substantial justice, especially in property disputes, without requiring a pedantic day-to-day explanation if the cause is bona fide.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.566 of 2022 in I.A.No.22 of 2020 in I.A.No.562 of 2019 in R.A.SR.No.2259 of 2019. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act r/w. Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the restoration petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

a) The petitioner, who is the landlord, initially instituted R.C. No.129 of 2014 before the learned I Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the respondent on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide requirement under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The said R.C. No.129 of 2014 came to be dismissed on 27.06.2019. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner preferred Appeal vide R.A.S.R. No.2259 of 2019 along with an interlocutory application vide I.A. No.562 of 2019, seeking condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the above said Appeal. However, due to failure on the part of the petitioner to take necessary steps, including service of notice on the respondents, the said delay petition was dismissed for default on 06.11.2019, resulting in dismissal of the appeal itself.

b) Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No.22 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay of 46 days in filing a petition to restore the appeal. However, the above said application was not prosecuted diligently and came to be dismissed for default on 08.03.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application, vide I.A. No.566 of 2022, seeking condonation of delay of 235 days in filing the restoration petition, which in turn was dismissed by the Appellate Court by the impugned order dated 17.04.2023.

Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that appellate court failed to duly consider the reasons assigned by the petitioner/landlord for the delay, as well as the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the belated filing of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, wherein sufficient cause was clearly set out for the earlier non-appearance leading to dismissal of the Appeal for default. However, without properly appreciating or adverting to the said explanations, the appellate court dismissed the application and refused to restore the appeal, thereby denying an opportunity to have the matter decided on merits.

5. It is further contended that the appellate court erred in observing that issuance of fresh notice to the respondents in the condonation delay petition was necessary, despite the fact that the respondents were already represented through counsel and had been served earlier. It is also contended that the appellate court acted perversely in insisting upon production of proof regarding the death of the junior counsel’s younger brother. It is further submitted that the appellate court failed to take into con