The revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants have filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 4.9.2007 in I.A. No. 222 of 2006 in unnumbered A.S. passed by the learned first Additional District Judge, Erode in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners under Order 41 Rule 3(A) of Civil Procedure Code praying to condone the delay of 721 days in preferring the appeal.
2.The trial court, while passing orders in I.A. 222 of 2006 dated 4.9.07, has opined that "the first revision petitioner/first appellant has not proved by way of documentary evidence in regard to the fact that he has been ill for three or four months and further that the said application has been filed only to protract the proceedings as long as possible and consequently dismissed the application."
3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the revision petitioners/defendants are residents of remote village and moreover, the first revision petitioner who has pursued the litigation is an illiterate and also that the reasons assigned in the affidavit in I.A. No.222 of 2006 are convincing one and as a matter of fact, the trial Court has not dealt with the application for condonation of delay in a liberal manner and this resulted in miscarriage of justice which requires an interference by this court and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition.
4.Contending Contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the third respondent submits that there is no proof in regard to the fact that the first revision petitioner has been suffering with heavy fever and she has taken three to four months treatment etc., and that the petitioners have not made out the case for allowing the civil revision petition and in fact the trial Court has passed a detailed order by not accepting the reasons mentioned in the affidavit in I.A. No.222 of 2006 and therefore, the said order is not to be disturbed by this court.
5.It is to be borne in mind that in the affidavit in I.A. No. 222 of 2006 filed by the first revision petitioner it is mentioned that "after her evidence in the suit she had returned back to her house and expected a Judgment from the Court and in the meantime, due to old age and suffering from fever she has been forced to take treatment for about three to four months and only in the 4th week of June 2004 she met her counsel and enquired about the position of her case etc.
6.In the counter filed by the first respondent before the trial Court, it is averred among other things that the revision petitioner has to explain each and every days delay of 721 days in preferring the appeal. The second revision petitioner is the son of the first revision petitioner and he is hale and healthy and the second revision petitioner has to prove that he is also not able to work due to ill-health and that the revision petitioner have encroached the suit property of about 335 feet on the eastern side etc.
7.The word 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act will have to be interpreted in a purposeful and meaning way. As a matter of fact, the Court of law is not supposed to adopt a pedantic approach instead it has to take a liberal view while dealing with the application of condonation of delay. Ordinarily a party does not stand to gain by lodging in appeal belatedly. Refusing to condone a delay will result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the nascent stage and thereby the cause of justice being defeated. On the other hand, if a party is allowed to enter into the scene of main proceedings, then the matter can be decided on merits. Of course a Court of law providing due opportunities to the parties to prove their case. The judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. This Court is of the considered view that substantial justice will have to be delivered to the parties overriding technicalities.
8.Be that as it may, as far as the present case is concerned, even though the petitioners have not satisfactorily explained in regard to the delay of 721 days in preferring an appeal to the satisfaction of this court, yet by taking a liberal view and to provide an opportunity to the revision petitioners, this Court allows the civil revision petition subject to a condition that the revision petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.2,750/- directly to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 on or before 05.08.2009, failing which the petition shall stand automatically dismissed without any further reference.
9.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 222 of 2006 in A.S.No. unnumbered of 200 is set aside for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. The revision petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,750/- as costs to the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 on or before 05.08.2009 failing which the petition shall stand automatically dismissed without any further reference. The First Appellate Court is directed to number the appeal immediately within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and after taking the appeal on its file is directed to dispose of the same within 3 months thereafter and to report compliance before this Court. The Registry is directed to transmit the records immediately to the first Appellate Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
prm To
1. The I Additional District Judge Court, Erode,
2.Sub Assistant Registrar (Judicial) High Court Madras (To watch & report) Madras