9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rth to South was purchased by one Venkatappa in the year 1916. Thereafter, the said Venkatappa sold a portion of the suit property and retained the balance portion measuring 45 yards East to West and 27.5 yards North to South. Vide a registered family partition, the suit Schedule property came to be divided between Venkatappa and Muniga @ Chikonu (Brother of Venkatappa) wherein Venkatappa had received 29 Ankanas along with 1/3rd share and Chikonu had received 10 Ankanas of house along with 2/3rd share. b. A suit for injunction being O.S No. 615/1960 came to be filed by Venkatappa against his family members which came to be subsequently withdrawn on or about 14.06. 1965. c. Initially one C.R. Narayana Reddy had filed a suit for specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said suit came to be eventually renumbered as O.S. No. 1833/1980. g. The O.S. No. 1833/1980 came to be dismissed on the first occasion for default in the year 1983. In lieu of the same, the Respondents herein had filed Misc. Petition No. 1063/1984 seeking to restore the said suit which came to be allowed in the year 1984. Thereafter, the Defendant No. 4 in O.S. No. 1833/1980 namely Shri. Nagaraja passed away on 04.12.1999. The Respondents having come to know of the same and having been granted sufficient opportunities on 06.03.2000, 18.07.2000 and 22.08.2000 respectively, failed to bring the legal heirs of the Defendant No. 4 on record as a consequence of which, the O.S. No. 1833/1980 came to be dismissed as having stood abated vide Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deceased Respondent No. 1 was not a bona fide purchaser and that a similar suit in O.S. No. 104/1972 which arose out of the same cause of action had also been dismissed on merits. b) that all the Respondents are educated and there was no impediment for the Respondents to obtain the certified copies in O.S. No. 1833/1980 at the earliest point of time. c) that the Respondents had failed to assign any sufficient cause for not filing the application till 2006 and moreover, the trial court noted that the cause shown by the Respondents also appeared to be doubtful. Furthermore, it was held that there is an inordinate delay of 6 years in filing the application for recall and the cause shown was insufficient. d) that the Respondents despite h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 1977 i.e., a suit which had been instituted about 48 years ago and is still at the stage of leading evidence. 7. He submitted that there is a delay of six years in filing the application for recall itself. He pointed out that this is the second instance that the suit came to be dismissed due to negligence and callous attitude on the part of the Respondents. 8. In such circumstances referred to above, he prayed that there being merit in his appeal, the same may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court be set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g obtained the certified copies on 26.8.2005 preferred the Misc. Case No. 223 of 2006 on 06.03.2006. (vii) Indisputably, there is a delay of 6 years (about 2200 days) in filing the application for recall itself. 13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as "liberal approach", "Justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. 14. We are constrained to observe that the High Court has exhibited complete absence of judicial c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
