Refusal To Condone Delay Can Thwart Meritorious Matters At Threshold: Andhra Pradesh High Court Restores Partition Suit

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has explained that while the insistence on explaining day-to-day delay is to tackle pendency of cases in Trial Courts and to contain litigants who seek to unnecessarily protract litigation, Trial Courts are nonetheless expected to adopt a pragmatic and practical approach while considering applications seeking condonation of delay.Justice Harinath N referred to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst.Katiji and others [AIR 1987 SC 1353], where the Supreme Court observed that applications for condonation of delay should have approached liberally as a litigant derives no benefit by lodging an appeal late, and refusal to condone might result in a meritorious matter being thrown at a threshold level. In this premise, the Single-Judge observed,“In a suit for partition, it is in the interest of all parties that the lis is adjudicated on merits. As rightly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no party would ordinarily intend to file an application to bring legal representatives on record at a belated stage with the sole object of delaying or protracting the proceedings. The concept of explaining the day-to-day delay had evolved keeping in view the pendency in the trial Courts and the tendency of certain litigants to protract litigation by filing applications with inordinate and unexplained delay. While considering an application for condonation of delay, the learned Senior Civil Judge is required to take into account the nature of the lis and the conduct of the parties.”BackgroundThe observations were rendered in a revision petition challenging an order of the Trial Court whereby it dismissed— (i) an interlocutory application (IA) seeking condonation of a delay of 2294 days, (ii) an IA seeking to set-aside abatement of the suit against the deceased, and (iii) another IA seeking to bring the legal representatives of the first deceased and to permit consequential amendment to the plaint.Originally, a suit was filed in 2009 by the petitioners' father seeking partition of the family property, arraying the petitioner's grandfather as the sole defendant. However, during the pendency of the petitions before the High Court, the defendant passed away.The petitioners submitted that while their interlocutory applications were dismissed solely on the ground that they failed to explain the day-to-day delay while seeking condonation of 2294 days, there was no counter filed by the respondents before the Trial Court. Additionally, they argued that they were unaware of the very filing and pendency of the partition suit during their father's lifetime, and came to know of it only after his death in 2013, when they chanced upon a copy of the plaint in the house. Thereafter, they made enquiries regarding the suit and sought to pursue the same as legal heirs, however, by the time they came to know about the partition suit, the suit before the Trial Court had already abated. They also argued that in a partition suit, parties have to be afforded adequate opportunity to adjudicate their rights in the family property, and therefore the Trial Judge should not have harped on technicalities, and should have taken a lenient view keeping in view the larger family interest.At the outset, the Court asserted that the explanation offered by the petitioners regarding the late discovery of the plaint was believable, and the same ought to have been accepted by the Trial Court.Further, with regard to the aspect of the petitioner's alleged failure to explain the 2294-days delay, the Single Judge observed that the Trial Court should have adopted a pragmatic and practical approach while considering applications for condonation of delay as in a partition suit, it is in the interest of all parties that the case is adjudicated on merits.Noting that the explanation offered by petitioners was plausible and ought to have been accepted by the Trial Court, the Single Judge allowed the petitions, and restored the original suit of 2009.Case Details:Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2075, 2076 and 2077 of 2022Case Title: GOGULAPALLI KHADAR MOHIDDIN (Died) v. GOGULAPALLI KHADA (Died)Click Here To Read/Download Order

Refusal To Condone Delay Can Thwart Meritorious Matters At Threshold: Andhra Pradesh High Court Restores Partition Suit

Saahas Arora

Tags