2016 (11) TMI 1551 - HC - Indian Laws

Delay in filing application - time limitation - after 1600 days delay, applicant approached the Court for setting aside the exparte decree - Held that - Admittedly, as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this petitioners / defendants 2 and 3 should have filed the application for setting aside the exparte decree within a period of 30 days from the date of exparte decree. But, this application was filed after a long delay of 1600 days and there was no proper explanation given by the petitioners / defendants 2 and 3 - The Hon ble Apex Court time and again directed the parties to give proper explanation for each and every day delay, but they were not given any proper reasons in this case. For the huge delay of 1600 days delay, there was no proper explanation by the petitioners / defendants 2 and 3, in fact the conduct of the defendants 2 and 3 namely petitioners herein that there was gross negligence on the part of them in depending the matter - This Court and the Hon ble Apex Court clearly stated that it is a settled legal principle that law of limitation is founded on Public Policy not meant to destroy rights of parties, but to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics. The parties ought to be vigilant in Court proceedings and the duty of the parties to conduct the case and contact their advocate in proper - it is their bounden duty for the petitioners / defendants 2 and 3 that they would appear before the Court regularly without absenting themselves and verifying about the status of the case - revision petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale deed dated 27.09.1999.
2. Maintenance claims by the plaintiffs.
3. Delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale Deed Dated 27.09.1999:
The plaintiffs argued that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favor of the third defendant on 27.09.1999 was not valid. They claimed that the property in question was ancestral and had been partitioned as per a deed dated 09.02.1987, with half belonging to the first plaintiff and the other half to the first defendant. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the sale deed was invalid and demanded a partition of the property into two shares.

The third defendant contended that the partition deed dated 09.02.1987 did not exist and that the plaintiffs and the first defendant were living as a joint family. He further stated that the first defendant had executed the sale deed for himself and his minor daughter (the first plaintiff) for a total consideration of ?3,00,000/-, and that he had since constructed a building and was running a shop on the property.

2. Maintenance Claims by the Plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs claimed that the first defendant had failed to provide maintenance, education, and medical expenses, and had not contributed to the marriage expenses of the first plaintiff. They sought maintenance of ?1,500/- per month for the second plaintiff and ?75,000/- for the marriage expenses.

The third defendant argued that the plaintiffs' claims were false and that the second plaintiff had signed as a witness in the sale deed dated 05.05.1995, thereby acknowledging the transaction. He also denied the allegations of the first defendant's drunkenness and illegal activities.

3. Delay in Filing the Application to Set Aside the Ex-parte Decree:
The suit was set ex-parte on 31.01.2003 due to the non-appearance of defendants 2 and 3, who then filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree with a delay of 1600 days. The petitioners claimed that their advocate had informed them that the suit was pending, but later they learned it was set ex-parte.

The respondents argued that the delay was not adequately explained and that the petitioners had been negligent in defending the case. They emphasized that the petitioners had failed to provide reasons for the delay for each day, as required by the Apex Court's directives.

Judgment:
The court dismissed the application to set aside the ex-parte decree, citing a lack of valid reasons for the 1600-day delay. The court referenced previous judgments emphasizing that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and should not be overridden by a liberal approach to condonation of delay. The court noted that the petitioners' plea lacked bona fide and showed gross negligence.

The court concluded that the petitioners had a duty to be vigilant in court proceedings and to regularly contact their advocate. The reasons provided by the petitioners were deemed unacceptable, and the order of dismissal by the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, was upheld. The civil revision petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

← Previous Next →