Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLI, r.3A and s.151 – In the first round of litigation, respondents could not succeed in setting aside the ex-parte decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit, and hence they preferred the appeal suit along with the application for condonation of delay of 1116 days – The said application for condonation of delay of 1116 days was dismissed by the First Appellate Court – However, the High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay of 1116 days and directed the First Appellate Court to proceed with the appeal suit on merits – Correctness:
Held: In the present case, from the perusal of the record, it can be observed that in the first round of litigation, the respondents were duly served with the summons after institution of the aforesaid suit – In response, they entered an appearance and filed their written statement, thereby submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court – However, despite being present in the initial stage of proceedings, respondents choose not to further appear before the Trial Court continuously – Consequently, the Trial Court was constrained to proceed ex-parte against them – Further, the High Court has relied upon N. Mohan, while passing the impugned order, however, on comparison, the facts of the said case are different from the case at hand – Consequently, the impugned order passed by the High Court is perverse in nature and is not in conformity with the legal principles – Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside – Proceeding further on the issue of condonation of delay of 1116 days in filing the appeal suit, since the respondents assigned the very same reasons in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in Unnumbered A.S. No. of 2022 as raised in I.A. Nos. 462 of 2018 and 119 of 2019 that had already been dismissed by this Court vide S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2054 & 2055 of 2022, the application for condonation of delay of 1116 days cannot be sustained – This Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2054 & 2055 of 2022, after going through the evidence placed on record, rightly held that the delay has not been properly explained – An order of this Court, passed upon judicial consideration, attains finality unless set aside through appropriate appellate or review mechanisms – In the present appeal, the respondents seek to raise the very same reason to condone the delay as were previously canvassed, without placing any fresh or additional material to distinguish the current reason from the one already discussed and dismissed – This Court is of the considered view that such a repetition of grounds already scrutinized and held untenable amounts to an abuse of the process of law. [Paras 25, 26, 28, 29, 30]
Condonation of delay – Plea for – Duty of the Court: Held: It is a well-settled law that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter – Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. [Para 31]
Condonation of delay – Condoning delay not an act of generosity:
Held: Delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity – The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party – In the present case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet. [Para 32]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.