AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
Petitioners are the defendants, who had earlier preferred Title Appeal No.34/2005 against the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court on 09.07.2004 in Title Suit No.15/1993.
As the title appeal was dismissed for default on 29.05.2007 and restoration application was filed being Revocation Case No.01/2017 after ten years under Order XLI Rule 19 of the CPC., learned first appellate Court dismissed the restoration application being barred by limitation.
The petitioners/defendants preferred Misc. Appeal No.115/2018 which was dismissed on 27.01.2020 for non-compliance to the order of this Court passed on 20.01.2020.
Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of miscellaneous appeal which has been dismissed for non-prosecution. There is a delay of 156 days in filing the restoration petition for which application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed.
The ground for condonation of delay that has been set-up in this civil miscellaneous petition is that there was delay in communication by the counsel for the appellant about the rejection order dated 27.01.2020, therefore, civil miscellaneous petition could not be filed within the stipulated period.
The ground that has been taken for restoration of the miscellaneous appeal does not inspire any confidence. It merely states that there was communication gap between the petitioners and the counsel, which resulted in the delay in preferring the instant restoration petition. From the progress of the case from the trial Court to the present stage, it is apparent that the petitioners has been most casual and lackadaisical in pursuing the legal remedy against the judgement and decree passed against him in 2004.
There is a delay of 156 days in preferring the restoration application of miscellaneous appeal, which has not been sufficiently explained. Earlier the first appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed for default and the restoration petition under Order XLI Rule 19 of the CPC was filed after more than 10 years, consequently, the same was dismissed as being barred by limitation. Instant civil miscellaneous petition is against this order. Hon’ble Supreme court recently held in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969
It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 11-years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then he cannot turn around and say that no prejudice would be caused to either side by the delay being condoned.
We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.
Under the circumstance the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.