Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Nahani Devi vs Gopal Lal Sharma And Others on 27 May, 2022
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 37/2010
1. Smt. Nahani Devi W/o Late Shri Nanda Ram, aged about 75
years, R/o Rajpura Usta, Tehsil Basti, District Jaipur Presently
Residing At C/o Shri Ramswaroop Tiwari Village Bhagwatgarh,
Near Lakhera, Tehsil Chauth Ka Barwara, District Sawai
Madhopur. (Deceased)
-----------Non-applicant-defendant-petitioner
2. Prahlad Sharma S/o Late Shri Narayan Lal Sharma, R/o
Prahladpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
3. Jagdish Narayan Sharma S/o Lallu Lal Sharma, R/o Kheda
Jagnnathpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Gopal Lal Sharma S/o Ramnath, aged about 64 years, R/o
Rampura Usta Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
2. Prabhu Narayan S/o Ramnath, aged about 58 years, R/o
Rampura Usta Tehsil Basti District Jaipur (Deceased)
2/1. Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Prabhu Narayan, R/o Rampura
Usta Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
2/2. Dilkhush S/o Late Shri Prabhu Narayan, R/o Rampura Usta
Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
2/3. Prem D/o Late Shri Prabhu Narayan, R/o Village sita pura,
RIICO Industrial Area, Sanganer.
2/4. Aarty D/o Late Shri Prabhu Narayan, R/o Village sita pura,
RIICO Industrial Area, Sanganer.
2/5. Anita D/o Late Shri Prabhu Narayan, R/o Village sita pura,
RIICO Industrial Area, Sanganer.
3. Bhagwan Sahay Sharma S/o Ramnath, aged about 48 years,
R/o Rampura Usta Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
4. Madan Lal Sharma S/o Ramnath, aged about 42 years, R/o
Rampura Usta Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
5. Brijmohan Sharma S/o Ramnath, aged about 38 years, R/o
Rampura Usta Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
6. Moti Devi W/o Late Shri Ramnath, aged about 87 years
(Deceased)
6/1. Gopi D/o Late Shri Ramnath W/o Kanha R/o Village
Rampura Bas Goner, Tehsil Sanganer
6/2. Soni D/o Late Shri Ramnath W/o Ghasi R/o Village
(Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:10 PM)
(2 of 18) [CR-37/2010]
Salagrampura Tehsil Sanganer
6/3. Lakshma D/o Late Shri Ramnth W/o Narayan R/o Village
Salagrampura Tehsil Sanganer.
-------Applicants-respondents
7. Birdhi Chand S/o Late Shri Manna Lal (Deceased)
7/1. Smt. Bhanwari W/o Late Shri Birdhi Chand R/o Rampura
Usta Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
7/2. Ratan S/o Late Shri Birdhi Chand , R/o Rampura Usta Tehsil
Basti District Jaipur
7/3. Kailash S/o Late Shri Birdhi Chand, R/o Rampura Usta
Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
7/4. Dinesh S/o Late Shri Birdhi Chand, R/o Rampura Usta
Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
8. Jagdish Narayan S/o Late Manna Lal, R/o Rampura Usta
Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
9. Rameshwar S/o Late Shri Manna Lal, R/o Rampura Usta
Tehsil Basti District Jaipur
----Non-applicant-plaintiff No.1 to 3-respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain with
Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Agarwal with
Mr. Akash Agarwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
Reserved on May 19th, 2022
Pronounced on May 27th, 2022
BY THE COURT:-
1. This revision petition was preferred by the petitioner No.1- defendant-Khatedar Smt. Nahani Devi (Now deceased) and later on, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were also allowed to join the present petition, to whom petitioner No.1 had transferred her Khatedari rights of the agricultural lands in question through registered sale deed and their names have been entered into as Khatedar in the revenue record. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:10 PM) (3 of 18) [CR-37/2010] 23.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.93/2008 whereby and whereunder the Appellate Court, while quashing the order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaipur District, Jaipur, dismissing the application for restoration filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, has condoned the delay of 9 years "from 26.07.1996 to 08.07.2005" with a cost of Rs.2000/-and directed the trial Court to decide the application for restoration afresh on merits.
2. It appears that a civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction was instituted on 16.04.1992, on the basis of an agreement dated 03.01.1988 which was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution at the stage of plaintiffs evidence on 26.07.1996. Thereafter, application for restoration of suit was moved on 08.07.2005, it means after near about 9 years. The trial Court did not find any sufficient reason to condone the delay of 9 years and dismissed the application for restoration vide order dated 13.08.2008. On filing appeal, the Appellate Court condoned the delay and directed the trial Court to consider and decide the application for restoration afresh on merits. Hence, feeling aggrieved by condonation of such huge, exorbitant and inordinate delay of 9 years by the Appellate Court, this revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order dated 13.08.2008.
3. The issue falls for consideration by the High Court under this revision petition is that as to whether the Appellate Court committed any material illegality/ irregularity and jurisdictional error in condoning the delay of 9 years interfering with the (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:10 PM) (4 of 18) [CR-37/2010] discretion of the trial Court where the trial Court declined to condone such inordinate delay after due consideration of all the facts and circumstances of case and as to whether the impugned order deserves to be quashed or not?
4. The relevant facts as culled out from the record may be recapitulated as under:
4.1 An agreement to sale dated 03.01.1988 was alleged to be executed by petitioner No.1-defendant Smt. Nahani Devi in favour of two persons namely Manna Lal and Rajnath in order to sale her agricultural lands in question against the total sale consideration of Rs.42,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.37,000/- was alleged to be paid and remaining Rs.5000/- has to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed.
4.2 After the agreement, out of two agreement holders, Manna Lal passed away on 15.05.1990, hence, his wife and three sons (plaintiff Nos.1 to 4) with co-agreement holder Rajnath (plaintiff No.5) jointly instituted a civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction on 16.04.1992, against petitioner No.1-
defendant Smt. Nahani Devi, seeking specific performance of agreement dated 03.01.1988. In the plaint, the cause of action was alleged to be accrued on 12.04.1992, when defendants declined to execute the sale deed on 12.04.1992, hence, the Civil suit was instituted on 16.04.1992.
4.3 Petitioner No.1-defendant Nahani Devi submitted written statement on 15.05.1992 denying the execution of agreement, receipt of any part sale consideration of Rs.37,000/- and categorically denied delivery of the possession to the agreement (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:10 PM) (5 of 18) [CR-37/2010] holder. It was contended that the lands in question is in her possession and cultivation and plaintiffs have filed the present suit, by preparing such false agreement in order to grab her land. 4.4. The trial Court settled issues on 19.08.1994 and then the suit was posted for producing the evidence by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs miserably failed to produce any evidence and despite giving several opportunities even on costs, none of plaintiffs appeared to depose their statements, hence, lastly the suit was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 26.07.1996. 4.5. No application for restoration of the suit for specific performance was filed till 08.07.2005. The defendant-petitioner No.1 Nahani Devi transferred the agricultural land to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 through registered sale deed dated 30.04.2005. Thereafter, the natural heirs and legal representatives (respondent Nos.1 to 6) of plaintiff No.5- Ram Nath filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC dated 08.07.2005 to restore the civil suit. No application for restoration was filed on behalf of plaintiff Nos.1 to
4. Since the application for restoration of civil suit was filed after a delay of about 9 years, hence, separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of period from 26.07.1996 to 08.07.2005 was also submitted. It was alleged in the application that plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath was dealing with suit proceedings and he died on 02.11.2004 and applicants are in possession and cultivation of lands in question and could not come to know about suit proceedings and when subsequent purchasers petitioner Nos.2 and 3 came to disturb their possession then applicants enquired about the suit proceedings and came to know (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:10 PM) (6 of 18) [CR-37/2010] on 10.06.2005. From 10.06.2005, due to summer vacations of the Civil Courts, application could not be filed. After opening of Civil Courts from summer vacations, the application has been filed on 08.07.2005. It appears that plaintiff No.4 Amri Devi- wife of agreement holder Manna Lal had also passed away. No explanation for not filing the application for restoration either by plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 or by plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath during his lifetime, was given. Even in the application for restoration, plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 not joined and were made party as non- applicant Nos.2 to 4.
4.6. Petitioner- Nahani Devi submitted reply to application for condonation of delay as well as for restoration application and oppose reasons assigned for condonation of delay. It was alleged that the order of dismissal of suit dated 26.07.1996 had attained finality, and application for restoration has been filed malafidely after an inordinate delay of 9 years. Applicants are litigants and want to involve land in question in litigation, applicants themselves were having knowledge of the civil suit. Plaintiffs did not file any application for restoration. It was disclosed that plaintiffs have sold the agricultural land to Prahlad and Jagdish (petitioner Nos.2 and 3) through sale deed who are in possession and cultivation of the land in question.
4.7. The trial Court, heard both parties on application for condonation of delay as well as on application for restoration. The trial Court considered that after filing of suit for specific performance on 16.04.1992, issues were framed on 19.08.1994, thereafter, for two years, the case was adjourned for producing (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:10 PM) (7 of 18) [CR-37/2010] evidence by plaintiffs. On 05.07.1996 last opportunity on cost of Rs.100/- was given but when plaintiffs did not produce any evidence and none appeared on behalf of plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 26.07.1996. The trial Court observed that there are five plaintiffs who filed the suit for specific performance. Even after dismissal of suit on 26.07.1996, the plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath died on 02.11.2004. There is no explanation as to why Ram Nath did not file any application for restoration and how the order of dismissal of suit could not come to his knowledge. There is no explanation for not filing the restoration application by other plaintiffs. The trial Court found that plaintiffs were highly negligent in prosecuting the suit and thereafter, no application for restoration is filed by any of plaintiffs. The application is filed by heirs of plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath only. The trial Court observed that there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay of 9 years in filing the application for restoration. Thus, finally the trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay as well as application for restoration vide order dated 13.08.2008.
4.8. Respondent-applicants preferred an appeal against the order dated 13.08.2008. In the appeal, Appellate Court did not consider as to whether sufficient cause has been assigned for seeking condonation of delay of 9 years but the Appellate Court has condoned the delay merely treating the issue of delay as technical and same can be compensated by way of cost. The Appellate Court, did not record any reasons, to upset the findings of the trial Court. The Appellate Court nowhere discussed as to why the (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:10 PM) (8 of 18) [CR-37/2010] application for restoration was not filed by plaintiffs including plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath during his life time. The Appellate Court dealt with the issue of delay of 9 years in a very casual and routine manner and allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on cost of Rs.2000/- and quashed the order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the trial Court and further remanded the application for restoration to the trial Court to decide the same afresh on merits. Hence, against the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 23.03.2010, this revision petition has been filed.
5. Counsel for petitioners would submit that the Appellate Court has committed material illegality and irregularity in quashing the order of the trial Court dated 13.08.2008 and condoning the delay of 9 years without there being any sufficient cause to explain such exorbitant and inordinate delay. It has been argued that plaintiffs were negligent in pursuing the suit for specific performance as they did not produce any evidence within a period of two years and further after dismissal of suit for non-prosecution plaintiffs never instituted any application for restoration of suit for 9 years. Application has been filed by natural heirs and legal representatives of one plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath, who passed away on 02.11.2004. Hence, there is no explanation at least from 26.07.1996 to 02.11.2004. Counsel for petitioners argued that the order of dismissal has attained finality and allowing to restore the suit would amounts to restoring a suit, for which even the limitation for specific performance had also expired. Counsel has argued that reasons to restore the civil suit and reasons to (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:10 PM) (9 of 18) [CR-37/2010] condone the delay are similar, hence, the Appellate Court by condoning the delay has virtually allowed the application for restoration of suit and remand of the application for restoration for decision is merely an eye wash. It has been argued that the Appellate Court has revived the suit for specific performance which, virtually has become a dead claim. It has been prayed that impugned order dated 23.03.2010 the Appellate Court is liable to be quashed and the order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application for restoration of suit deserves to be upheld.
6. Counsel for petitioners has relied upon following judgments passed in case of Majji Sannemma Vs. Reddy Sridevi [AIR 2022 SC 332], Brijesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana [AIR 2014 SC 1612], Lanka Venkateshwarlu (D) Vs. State of A.P. [AIR 2011 SC 1199], Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh [AIR 2010 SC 3043].
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- applicants has supported the impugned order dated 23.03.2010 and has relied upon following judgments passed in case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu Vs. Gobardhan Sao [AIR 2002 SC 1201], Sahu Dawood Ammal Vs. Muniammal [AIR 1995 MADRAS 369], Ishwar Saran (Since Deceased) Vs. Vijai Kumar Kushwaha (Since Deceased) [2021(4) Civil Court Cases 791 (Allahabad)].
8. Heard counsel for both parties, perused the orders and scanned the record.
(Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:10 PM)
(10 of 18) [CR-37/2010]
9. At the outset, it may be noticed that according to the Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963, period of limitation to restore a suit is 30 days from the date of dismissal. In the present case, the suit was dismissed on 26.07.1996 and an application for restoration was moved on 08.07.2005. If the period of limitation of 30 days is excluded, the application is apparently barred by near about 3240 days delay. It is noted that by the impugned order, the Appellate Court has condoned the huge delay of about 9 years in moving an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of civil suit. The Appellate Court has observed that applicants are natural heirs and legal representatives of plaintiff- Ram Nath, who had passed away after dismissal of suit and there is no evidence on record to show that applicants were having knowledge of suit proceedings. Further the Appellate Court observed that the suit was dismissed in default due to non- appearance of counsel for plaintiffs wherein plaintiffs may not be assumed to be negligent. Lastly the Appellate Court observed that the Court should be liberal in condoning the delay and objections of opposite party for not condoning the delay can be compensated by awarding costs. Thus, a perusal of the order impugned goes to show that the Appellate Court has not observed that any sufficient cause explaining the huge delay of about 9 years has been made out by applicants. The Appellate Court has also not considered the reasoning assigned by the trial Court in the order dated 13.08.2008, denying to condone the delay nor the Appellate Court has adverted to the nature of civil suit, the conduct of plaintiffs, non-explanation by applicants for not filing the application for restoration by any of the plaintiffs themselves etc. The Appellate (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:10 PM) (11 of 18) [CR-37/2010] Court has not adverted to peculiar facts of the present case and has adopted a casual and mechanical approach, in condoning the delay as a matter of routine. The Appellate Court has not adverted to the negligence on the part of plaintiffs and malafides on the part of applicants.
10. On considering facts of the present case, it transpires that as many as five plaintiffs (plaintif Nos.1 to 4 are three sons and wife of agreement holder Manna Lal) and plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath is co- agreement holder, filed the civil suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 03.01.1988. The agreement was said to be executed in the joint name of Manna Lal and Ram Nath. The civil suit was instituted on 16.04.1992 wherein issues were framed on 19.08.1994. The Civil suit was posted thereafter for producing evidence by plaintiffs. It appears that plaintiffs did not turn up to produce their evidence for as long as two years and during this period, several opportunities were accorded to plaintiffs, even after giving last opportunity, one more opportunity was extended on cost of Rs.100/- vide order dated 05.07.1996 and thereafter, when neither any of the plaintiff nor their Advocate appeared before the trial Court, the civil suit was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 26.06.1996. After dismissal of the civil suit, plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath died on 02.11.2004. Applicants who moved the application for restoration of civil suit on 08.07.2005 are natural heirs and legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath. Applicants have not stated any reason for not filing the application for restoration by any of the plaintiff including their father and husband Ram Nath during his lifetime. Thus, there (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:11 PM) (12 of 18) [CR-37/2010] is no explanation of delay after dismissal of suit on 26.07.1996 till 02.11.2004 when plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath is said to be passed away. A casual statement that Advocate of plaintiffs did not inform plaintiffs about dismissal of suit is not suffice to explain the delay of 9 years. After death of plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath on 02.11.2004, applicants claimed to have knowledge of present suit proceedings on 05.05.2005 and obtained certified copy of the suit proceedings on 10.06.2005. It appears from record that applicants with other plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 jointly filed a revenue suit before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bassi for permanent injunction on 13.06.2005. It is necessary to notice that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 have not filed any application for restoration of suit but the application for restoration of suit has been filed by the natural heirs and legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath only on 08.07.2005. In the application for restoration, plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 have been added as non-applicants Nos.2 to 4 with the petitioner No.1-defendant Nahani Devi. Here it may be inferred that the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC has not been moved with bonafides and clean hands as applicants tried to mislead the Court seeking condonation of delay on account of death of plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath. Obviously, applicants were not party to the suit proceedings, hence, they tried to encash this point to contend that they were not having knowledge of suit proceedings. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 deliberately were not joined as applicants in application for restoration, apparently for the reason that they have no explanation for not filing the application for restoration for a long period of 9 years. Even there is no explanation for plaintiff No.5 Ram Nath also for not filing application for restoration during (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:11 PM) (13 of 18) [CR-37/2010] his lifetime as he died only on 02.11.2004, whereas the suit had been dismissed way back on 26.06.1996. This aspect of the matter was noticed by the trial Court and considering the mala fides on the part of applicants, the application for restoration was dismissed while declining to condone the delay. Moreso, when the applicants and plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 had jointly filed the revenue suit for permanent injunction before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bassi on 13.06.2005 and plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 being non-applicant in the application for restoration, supported the stand of applicants. Such facts and conduct of applicants and plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 were not considered by the Appellate Court. That apart, the trial Court noticed that the original plaintiffs too were negligent in pursuing the civil suit for specific performance as they did not lead any evidence for long two years. Further after dismissal of suit for non-prosecution and in default, they did not move any application for restoration of their civil suit for specific performance. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to interfere that plaintiffs were not at all interested in continuing the suit proceedings of specific performance and for them the order of dismissal of suit in default and for non-prosecution had attained finality. Applicants who moved the application being natural heirs and legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.5, may not be allowed to claim better case for restoration of the suit for specific performance, which virtually has been rendered as a dead case by their predecessors. The Appellate Court has not considered this aspect of the matter too. Therefore, the Appellate Court, at one hand has not looked into the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case nor have assigned any reason to differ from the (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:11 PM) (14 of 18) [CR-37/2010] finding passed by the trial Court and has arbitrarily substituted its discretion over the discretion of the trial Court. Once the trial Court has exercised its discretion, after due consideration of the holistic facts and circumstances of present case denying to condone the delay and dismissing the application for restoration, the Appellate Court has committed material illegality/ irregularity as much as jurisdictional error in substituting its own view over the view of the trial Court and condoning the inordinate delay of 3240 days that too without giving any sufficient cause as also without pondering over reasons assigned by the trial Court as well as without considering the peculiar facts of the present case. Therefore, the Appellate Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously and the impugned order dated 23.03.2010 suffers from material illegality/ irregularity and jurisdictional error on the part of Appellate Court.
11. At this stage a few decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, referred by the parties are required to be considered:
11.1 In case of Majji Sannemma (supra) referred by counsel for petitioners, the Supreme Court observed that the words "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor any lack of bonafide is imputable to applicants. The Supreme Court relied upon the judgment passed in case of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgoan Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448] declined to condone the delay of 1011 days in preferring the second appeal and set aside the order of condonation of delay passed by the High Court. In case of (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:11 PM) (15 of 18) [CR-37/2010] Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"The laws of limitation are founded on public policy. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as "statutes of peace". An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurities and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. The principle is based on the maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium", that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression. The object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."
11.2 In case of Brijesh Kumar (supra) relied upon by counsel for petitioner, the Supreme Court observed that the Court while allowing the application for condonation of delay has to draw a discretion between delay and inordinate delay. Want of bonafides or an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. In this case, the Supreme Court relied on the previous judgment delivered in case P.K. Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. [AIR 1998 SC 2276] wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:- (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:11 PM)
(16 of 18) [CR-37/2010]
"Law of limitation may harshly affect a
particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."
11.3 In case of Lanka Venkateshwarlu (D) (supra) referred by counsel for petitioners declined to condone the delay of two years and observed, placing reliance on the previous judgment passed in case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh & Ors. Vs. Annabai Devram Kini & Ors. [AIR 2003 SC 4244] that even if the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely filed within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the concerned parties. The purpose of introducing the liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of reasonableness as it is understood in its general connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has defined consequences on the right and application of a party to arise. Once a valuable right, has accrued in favour of one party as a result of failure of other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that is accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.
11.4 In case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu (supra), referred by counsel for respondents, the Supreme Court has (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:11 PM) (17 of 18) [CR-37/2010] observed that expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act which receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to party. Applying this ratio to the facts of present case, the original plaintiffs were not only negligent in pursuing their suit for specific performance as also not moving any application for restoration but applicants, who moved the application, are not bonafide and have not come with clean hands.
11.5 The judgment passed in case of Sahu Dawood Ammal (supra) relied upon by counsel for respondents, it was observed that the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC moved by one plaintiff in the suit filed by many plaintiffs is maintainable. This Court has not disagreement with the proposition of delay but in the present case, the question is not about the maintainability of application but relevant consideration is that the application for restoration may not be treated as bonafide and fair when there is no reason that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 have not joined with the applicants to file the application under Order 9 Rule 9 and their such conduct clearly reflects mala fides on their part, for the reasons discussed hereinabove.
11.6 As far as judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in case of Ishwar Saran (supra) referred by counsel for respondent is concerned, there is no disagreement with the proposition of law that there should be a liberal exercise of discretion to condone the delay and the Court should as far as may be opted to decide the matters on merits, rather than throwing out parties on the technicality of limitation.
(Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:11 PM)
(18 of 18) [CR-37/2010]
12. It is known proposition of law that the condonation of delay is based on facts of each case. There is no straight jacket formula for condonation of delay. In the present case, this Court finds that applicants were not bonafide and further the application under Order 9 Rule 9 itself is not fair as much as the negligence and inaction on the part of original plaintiffs is apparent on the face of record, therefore, when the trial Court has declined to condone the delay, it was not justified to the Appellate Court to quash the order and to condone the delay of 9 years without findings of sufficient cause. Moreover the delay in the present case is exorbitant and inordinate.
13. Having discussed factual and legal aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellate Court has committed material illegality/ irregularity as much as jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2010 and the same deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. As a consequence, the order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the trial Court is upheld.
14. As a result, the revision petition is allowed.
15. There is no order as to costs.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN / (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:11 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)