IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 296/2020

BETWEEN :

SMT PILLAMMA

W/O POOLAKUNTE LAGUMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

R/O CHIKKATHATTAMANGALA VILLAGE,

VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER

SRI SRINIVAS N.

SON OF. NARAYANAPPA.

... PETITIONER

(By SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. SANJEEV B. L., ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.

SRI R. K. RAJKUMAR

S/O V.KODANDAPANI

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

R/AT J.C.EXTENSION, VIJAYAPURA TOWN,

DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 562 110.

2.

SRI.B.V.MACHAPPA

S/O BENACHAPPA

AGED 64 YEARS,

R/AT CHIKKATHATTAMANGALA VILLAGE,

2

VIJAYAURA HOBLI,

DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 562 110.

... RESPONDENTS

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC AGAINST THE

ORDER DATED 25.02.2020 PASSED IN MISC. CASE NO. 36/2014

ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER

9 RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR RESTORING

THE SUIT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The defendant in a suit for specific performance, which

is dismissed for default on 7.2.2012 but is restored in the

subsequent proceedings in Misc.Case No.36/2014, is before

this Court calling in question the order of restoration dated

25.02.2020.

2.

The respondents have filed their suit for specific

performance in O.S.No.2239/2006 on the file of the Senior

Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (for short, ‘civil Court’).

3

This suit is dismissed for default on 7.2.2012 and thereafter

Misc.Case No.36/2014 filed under the provisions of Order IX

Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’)

before the civil Court for restoration of the suit is considered

favourably

by

the

impugned

order.

The

respondents’

application for restoration of the suit under Order IX Rule 9 of

the CPC is filed belatedly by over two years, and the civil

Court has condoned this delay.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the civil Court has considered the application for

condonation of delay liberally even in the absence of

justifiable cause perfunctorily observing that there is not

much delay in filing the petition. The learned counsel next

submits that the suit for specific performance is by the two

respondents - plaintiffs but in support of the application for

restoration only one of them is examined. Even if it could be

conceded that one of them was prevented by sufficient cause

4

in appearing before the Civil Court for effective prosecution of

the suit, there is no mention about the reasons for non-

participation/prosecution by the other respondent/plaintiff.

The Civil Court could not have condoned the delay only

because

of

the

reasons

offered

by

one

of

the

respondents/plaintiffs as no explanation is offered on behalf

of the other respondent/plaintiff.

4.

It is seen that the respondents have contended

that one of them was suffering from enteric fever and

therefore he could not appear before the Civil Court to

prosecute the suit. This cause has been accepted by the Civil

Court. As regards the other respondent/plaintiff, it is their

case that this respondent is not worldly-wise and he is solely

depending on the other respondent/plaintiff. This explanation

has been accepted by the Civil Court in considering the cause

shown.

5

5.

It is settled¹ that Courts must not take a pedantic

view while considering the application for condonation of

delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the

Courts must lean in favour of a decision on merits unless it is

shown that the reasons offered are vit