HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4746 of 2013
Date: September 05, 2014
Between:
Muthineni Venkataiah.
… Petitioner and
1. Muthineni Janaiah & 3 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4746 of 2013
O R D E R:
This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, dismissing I.A.No.285 of 2012 in O.S.No.326 of 2008.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the said suit and filed the subject I.A. to condone the delay of 102 days in filing a petition for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default on 13.02.2012. Admittedly, the subject I.A. was filed on 23.06.2012 and the petitioner/plaintiff failed to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the subject I.A. after being informed of the dismissal of the suit by his present counsel. The respondents/defendants contested the I.A. stating that the petitioner/plaintiff had knowledge of the dismissal of the suit, as he had also adduced evidence in criminal proceedings. The Court below took note of the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff had been given many opportunities to adduce evidence and despite taking adjournments on one ground or the other, he failed to remain present on 13.02.2012, being the date to which the case had been adjourned with the condition that no further adjournment would be granted. The Court below also found that the petitioner/plaintiff was not diligent in prosecuting the litigation and had failed to explain the delay of 102 days properly.
3. Sri T.G.Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff relied on the decisions in Bulusu
[1]
Sundareshwara Murthy V. Ravi Kumar and Ram Nath Sao
[2]
alias Ram Nath Sahu V . Gobardhan Sao to support his contention that the Court below ought to have been more liberal in construing ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay. However, this Court is of the opinion that the aforestated judgments do not help the case of the petitioner/plaintiff. I n Ram Nath Sao (2 supra) the Supreme Court specifically observed that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party.
4. In the present case, the order reflects that the inaction and negligence were directly imputable to the petitioner/plaintiff, as there was admittedly delay on his part in filing the petition after coming to know of the dismissal of the suit. Further, no explanation was forthcoming from the affidavit filed in support of the subject I.A. to explain the said delay. The casual carelessness with which the I.A. was filed warranted and justified the order passed by the Court below.
5. The decision of this Court in Bulusu Sundareshwara Murthy (1 supra) is also of no avail to the petitioner/plaintiff. Therein, this Court merely observed that courts should not adopt a pedantic and hyper-technical approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay. That being so, when a party files an application supported by an affidavit which discloses no valid reasons to explain the delay, the Court cannot baldly act upon such an I.A. and overlook the negligence or inaction on the part of the party. The decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao (2 supra) would militate against such an approach. This Court therefore finds no error in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference in this civil revision petition.
6. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state, as the subject suit was filed for an injunction simpliciter, this order would not preclude the petitioner/plaintiff from approaching the Court in the event a fresh cause of action arises. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
Date: September 05, 2014. BSB HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4746 of 2013
Date: September 05, 2014
BSB
[1] 2013 (6) ALT 249
[2] AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1201