Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2449 (RAJ)

L. Rs. of Sohan Lal v. L. Rs. of Ramchandra

2005-09-15

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2005
Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 19/1991 dated 29.08.1992 whereby the learned lower appellate Court affirmed the order of the trial Court dated 210.1983 rejecting the plaintiff petitioners application under Order 22 Rule 9, read with Section 151, CPC. 2. The trial Court has observed in its order dated 210.1983 that suit of the plaintiff stood abated on account of plaintiff having not taken steps in time for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased defendant Ramchandra, his application moved under Order 22 Rule 9, read with Section 151, CPC for setting aside the abatement cannot be allowed. 3. In the suit of the plaintiff for arrears of rent and eviction, by order dated 04.04.1979 interim rent was determined against which the defendant preferred appeal and during the course of the appeal the defendant died on 07.04.1980. The next date was fixed in the appeal on 22.07.1980 and on that date defendant-appellants Counsel presented application for taking on record the legal heirs of the deceased appellant. The plaintiff submitted that for the first time he came to know about the death of the defendant by letter of his Counsel dated 22.07.1980. However, opposing the plaintiff s application it was submitted by the defendants that they had moved application for impleadment in the appeal on 01.07.1980 after giving copy of the application to the plaintiff s counseld and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot plead that before 22.07.1980 he was not aware about the factum of death of the defendant. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff has in no way explained away the delay for the period between 06.07.1980 and 30.07.1980. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was in a position to move the application for substitution of the legal heirs well in time but he failed to do so and has moved the application after expiry of the limitation. As such the trial Court refused to set aside the abatement. 4. In its Judgment dated 29.08.1992, the lower appellate Court held that the discretion exercised by the trial Court was judiciously exercised and the trial Court has committed no irregularity or illegality in rejecting the application of the plaintiff moved under Order 22 Rule 7, read with Section 151, CPC. 5. 4. In its Judgment dated 29.08.1992, the lower appellate Court held that the discretion exercised by the trial Court was judiciously exercised and the trial Court has committed no irregularity or illegality in rejecting the application of the plaintiff moved under Order 22 Rule 7, read with Section 151, CPC. 5. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiff had explained away the delay and there was no ground for rejecting the petitioners application. He urged that in view of the various Judgment s governing the principle the trial Court committed irregularity in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. He contended that the lower appellate Court has not addressed application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and has merely reiterated the observations of the trial Court. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the revision petition and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was sufficient material before the Courts below for disbelieving the version of the plaintiff and, therefore, his application was rightly rejected. He contended that the plaintiff was in a position to take steps in time but he did not do so without any sufficient cause. 7. Normally this Court would not interfere in discretionary exercise of power by the Courts below in revisional jurisdiction. However, it may be noted here that the terms sufficient cause employed for condonation of delay should be based on an appreciation aimed at advancing substantial justice. It would be sheer technical appreciation if a cause is brushed aside on the ground of delay without reference to its merit. When the Court is called upon to condone delay in its judicious exercise of discretion, "sufficient cause" must be construed as may not occasion failure of justice and may enable the Courts to advance substantial justice in meaningful manner. A negative discretion would be justified when negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is glaringly conspicuous in the behaviour of a party litigating; but, when the delay is just sufficiently explained away without there being any cogent ground to disbelieve the party praying for condonation, it would be harsh to refuse the prayer. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, obviously both the Courts below took a hypertechnical view of the events occasioning the delay which was not warranted in the case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, obviously both the Courts below took a hypertechnical view of the events occasioning the delay which was not warranted in the case. While taking a liberal construction of the term "sufficient cause", it is aptly observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Kati Ji & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353 , that the highest that can happen when delay is condoned is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties; and that is the meaningful purpose of the Courts of law. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am, therefore, inclined to accept the revision petition and the same is accordingly allowed. Order dated 210.1983 passed by the trail Court as well as Judgment dated 29.08.1992 passed by the lower appellate Court are set aside. Delay is condoned and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 312.2005. Since, the suit is pending since 1983, the trial Court shall complete the trial with expedition. 9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.