Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3292 (MAD)

A. Goutamchand v. S. Krishnaveni

2012-07-26

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition is focussed as against the fair and decreetal orders dated 25.06.2012 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.P.No.174 of 2011 in the unnumbered RCA in SR No.12414 of 2011. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Pithily and precisely, the germane facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: a) Being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller in fixing the fair rent, the tenant filed an appeal with a delay of 260 days on the ground that he was suffering from ill-health, in view of he having met with an accident earlier. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the appellate authority dismissed the application; as against this civil revision petition is focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would reiterate the grounds as found set out in the revision that already the landlords preferred RCA, which is pending. In the meanwhile, the tenant preferred an appeal with delay; but that delay was not condoned. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the landlords citing the decision of this court reported in 2010-2-LW 363 [Padma and 2 others vs. Standard Literature Company (P) Ltd. Rep.by its Manager No.16, Ritchie Street, Chennai 600 002] would argue that absolutely there is no valid reason for condoning the delay because untenable and unbelievable reasons were found set out in the affidavit; the accident alleged to have occurred somewhere earlier to the passing of the order by the Rent Controller and even then, it was cited as one of the reasons to get the delay condoned. 6. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant by citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1999) 1 MLJ 114 (SC) [N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy] would seek condonation of delay. 7. My mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the aforesaid point. (i) 2012(4) Scale 152 [S.Ganesharaju (d) their Lrs and another vs. Narasamma (d) through their Lrs and others] and certain excerpts from it would run thus: "15. The expression "sufficient cause" as appearing in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, has to be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. 16. (i) 2012(4) Scale 152 [S.Ganesharaju (d) their Lrs and another vs. Narasamma (d) through their Lrs and others] and certain excerpts from it would run thus: "15. The expression "sufficient cause" as appearing in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, has to be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. 16. Unless respondents are able to show malafide in not approaching the court within the period of limitation, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. The trend of the courts while dealing with the matter with regard to condonation of delay has tilted more towards condoning delay and directing the parties to contest the matter on merits, meaning thereby that such technicalities have been given a go-by. 17. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. 18. We are aware of the fact that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. 19. In fact, it is always just, fair and appropriate that matters should be heard on merits rather than shutting the doors of justice at the threshold. Since sufficient cause has not been defined, thus, the courts are left to exercise a discretion to come to the conclusion whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. The only guiding principle to be seen is whether a party has acted with reasonable diligence and had not been negligent and callous in the prosecution of the matter. In the instant case, we find that appellants have shown sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay and same has been explained satisfactorily. " (ii) 2010(2) Supreme 115 (Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd., vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another) and an excerpt from it would run thus: "8. ............The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. ............The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and other similar statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 , N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, (2001) 9 SCC 106 . ..........................." (iii) AIR 2002 SC 1201 (Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and aothers v. Gobardhan Sao and others) and certain excerpts from it would run thus: "13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses." (emphasis added) This is a peculiar case, in which the landlords filed RCA agitating as against the fixing of fair rent by the Rent Controller, which is still pending; by that time, the tenant did choose to file such RCA with an application to get the delay of 260 days condoned, but that was dismissed. 8. The factual matrix would highlight and connote that even though the tenant could argue in the appeal filed by the landlords and get remedies, nonetheless, he had chosen to file an appeal by way of cross objection. Taking into account the pros and cons of the peculiar situation as highlighted supra, the appellate authority could have very well condoned the delay, but it failed to do so. 9. Simply because the accident occurred to the tenant much earlier, that it does not mean that its aftermath will have no impact on his activities. As such, I am of the view that the delay could be condoned subject to payment of cost of a sum of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) payable by the tenant to the landlords within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.