Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 652 (TS)

Gandla Gangaram @ Gandla Nadipi Gangaram (died) v. Narsimulu @ Narsaiah @ Sunkam Narsimulu (died)

2022-10-14

JUVVADI SRIDEVI

body2022
ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, challenging the docket order, dated 03.08.2022, passed in I.A.No.80 of 2022 in A.S.No.5 of 2016, by the I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, whereby, the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022 filed by the petitioners herein under Section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of (982) days in filing the petition to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff on record, was dismissed. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri L. Sandeep, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and Sri V. Neelakanta Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5/proposed respondents. I have perused the record. 3. Initially, respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed the subject suit in O.S.No.94 of 2013 before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad, seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, mesne profits and costs. The said suit was decreed. Challenging the same, petitioner No.1 herein/defendant filed the subject appeal in A.S.No.5 of 2016 before the Court below. During the pendency of said appeal, the petitioner No.1 herein/defendant died and the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein, being the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner No.1 herein, were brought on record. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff also died on 03.10.2019 leaving behind his wife and daughters, i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein as his legal heirs. Therefore, the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein filed the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022 before the Court below seeking to condone the delay of (982) days in filing the petition to bring the respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein on record as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1. The said application was dismissed by the Court below vide impugned order, dated 03.08.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 filed this Civil Revision Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the delay was neither intentional nor wanton, but for the time taken for obtaining the Death Certificate and Family Members’ Certificate. The Court below erroneously dismissed the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022. The subject suit, which was assailed in the subject appeal, is for declaration of title and recovery of possession involving substantial rights of the parties. The Court below erroneously dismissed the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022. The subject suit, which was assailed in the subject appeal, is for declaration of title and recovery of possession involving substantial rights of the parties. The respondent Nos.2 to 5, being the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1, are necessary parties for proper adjudication of the matter. If the delay is not condoned and if the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not brought on record, irreparable loss would ensue to petitioner Nos.2 to 5, which cannot be compensated by any other means. It is settled law that it is always better to decide the matter on merits rather than on technicalities. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are designed with an objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. In the affidavit filed in support of the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022, the petitioners have clearly explained the circumstances under which they could not file subject application in time, but the Court below erroneously held that the petitioners were lethargic and did not evince any interest to prosecute the matter. No prudent person would afford to allow the limitation for filing the application to expire, when he/she has got a good case in his/her favour. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay of (982) days and ultimately prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 did not seriously oppose for allowing the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022 by condoning the delay of (982) days. 6. The law on the aspect of condonation of delay is well settled. This Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court have been repeatedly pointing out that Courts must adopt liberal approach in matters of condonation of delay, where there are justifiable grounds. If the reasons for the delay are bona fide and the applicant does not derive any benefit because of the delay, the Courts must condone the delay by adopting liberal approach. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal/application late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal/application late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, so that the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done, because of non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay has occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides, unless proven otherwise. It must be born in mind that judiciary is respected not for its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice, which it is expected to do so. Hence, the Courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach, when there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 7. In the instant case, undoubtedly, there is long delay of (982) days. The Court below, while dismissing the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022, held that the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein were lethargic and did not show any interest to prosecute the matter. The reason shown by the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 for the delay is for obtaining Death Certificate and Family Members Certificate. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 did not seriously object for condoning the delay. Admittedly, the subject suit, which was assailed in the subject appeal, is a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for future mesne profits and costs, which involves substantial rights of the parties. If the delay is condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and on the other hand, it would enable both the parties to have their dispute decided on merits. Substantial issues are required to be addressed in the subject appeal. If the delay is condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and on the other hand, it would enable both the parties to have their dispute decided on merits. Substantial issues are required to be addressed in the subject appeal. Considering the fact that technicalities should not come in the way of rendering justice and that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein can be given an opportunity to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 on record in the subject appeal, as the explanation offered is a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay and the length of the delay is no matter and the acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. In the considered view of this Court, the facts and circumstances of this case afford sufficient grounds to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein. Further, addition of respondent Nos.2 to 5 as party respondents to the subject appeal is necessary for determining the controversy and giving a quietus to the dispute. 8. On the above analysis, this Court finds that the Court below is not justified in dismissing the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022 and therefore, the order under challenge warrants interference. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order, dated 03.08.2022, passed in I.A.No.80 of 2022 in A.S.No.5 of 2016 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, is set aside. Consequently, the subject I.A.No.80 of 2022 is allowed, permitting the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 herein to implead respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein as party respondents to the subject appeal. However, considering the fact that the subject appeal is sufficiently old, the Court below is directed to dispose of the subject appeal, in accordance with law, within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties as well as their respective counsel are directed to cooperate for final disposal of the subject appeal within the time stipulated above. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.