2022 (2) TMI 1444 - HC - Indian Laws

Restoation of civil suit - seeking declaration of title in relation to the suit schedule homestead land - cancellation of mutation - permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs or otherwise causing injury in relation to the suit schedule land - whether the applicants in the miscellaneous cases before the Trial Court were able to show their bonafides and establish sufficient cause by demonstrating that the mistake of their counsel if any should to be condoned? HELD THAT - In the case on hand it may be seen that the suit which was filed as long back as in the year 2006 has remained practically frozen since then and the trial has not even commenced till now. It was dismissed for non-prosecution on two occasions earlier but was restored on payment of costs. In effect this is the third time that the suit came to be dismissed for default. That apart there are any number of technical lapses and defects in the miscellaneous cases that reflect poorly upon the bonafides of the applicants and their learned counsel. Having suffered the earlier mistakes of the very same counsel without protest or remedial action it is not open to the applicants to blithely blame their counsel time and again and pray that they should not be penalized for his mistakes. The only reason cited therein by the learned counsel for the applicants for restoration of Judl. Misc. Case No. 117 of 2012 was that the said application was listed on 17.01.2013 and he came to Court around 12 00 noon and upon checking the record he found that the restoration application was dismissed for default. No reason was offered by the learned counsel as to why he failed to come to Court on time. This aspect was taken note of by the Trial Court in the order dated 13.06.2014 and the miscellaneous case was rejected. It is not open to a party or its learned counsel to take it for granted that an application of this nature would be dealt with leniently and not even offer an explanation for the failure on their part to appear. Utter laxity on the part of the surviving plaintiffs in the suit and the widow and children of the deceased first plaintiff in pursing the litigation is therefore manifest. In such circumstances it is not open to them to casually blame their Advocate and seek restoration of a suit of the year 2006 which has not progressed even a step further i.e. to the stage of trial - In the interest of justice and in the interest of the defendants who are made to put up with the vagaries of the uncaring and casual pursuit of this litigation since over a decade and a half this Court finds no grounds whatsoever to show further indulgence to the petitioners. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are utterly devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the dismissal and restoration of a civil suit, applications for restoration, and condonation of delay in filing applications.

Details of the judgment:

1. The original suit was filed seeking declaration of title, cancellation of mutation, and permanent injunction regarding a homestead land. The suit faced multiple dismissals and restorations due to non-prosecution and delays in filing necessary applications.

2. After the death of the first plaintiff, applications for restoration and condonation of delay were filed by the legal representatives. However, these applications were dismissed for various reasons including non-appearance and technical defects.

3. The petitioners argued for leniency citing legal precedents emphasizing the need for substantial justice and the role of procedure in serving justice. However, the court noted chronic delays, technical lapses, and lack of bonafide conduct on the part of the applicants and their counsel.

4. The court highlighted the importance of timely and diligent pursuit of litigation, especially in cases where there have been repeated dismissals and restorations due to non-prosecution and technical defects.

5. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the civil revision petitions, dismissing them and emphasizing the need for diligence and care in pursuing legal proceedings to ensure justice for all parties involved.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.