Manikantan vs Chockalingam Pillai, Ayya Pillai, Thankappan Pillai and Kumaresan

M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner/Appellant/first Defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court as against an order dated 28/1/2003 in I.A. No. 119 of 2003 in A.S. No. 123 of 1997 passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram.

The learned First Appellate Authority viz., the learned Sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram, while passing orders in I.A. No. 119 of 2002 in A.S. No. 123 of 1997 dated 28/1/2003 has among other things observed that "the Revision Petitioner has not taken steps in time to implead the deceased second Respondent''s Legal Representatives and has come to the conclusion that there is no reason to allow the application and resultantly, dismissed the same with costs."

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/first Defendant urges before this Court that the order of the First Appellate Authority/learned Sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram in I.A. No. 119 of 2002 in A.S. No. 123 of 1997 dated 28/1/2003 is contrary to law, facts and also vitiated by an error of jurisdiction.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant that the delay to implead the deceased legal representatives of the second Respondent has occurred only for sixteen days and the First Appellate Authority instead of allowing the said application has dismissed the same, which is not correct in the eye of law.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/first Defendant takes a plea that the Petitioner has filed I.A. No. 119 of 2002 to excuse the delay of sixteen days for filing the impleading petition and the reason assigned by the Petitioner in the affidavit is that the Petitioner has come to know about the death of the second Respondent only on 28/4/2011 when the Advocates appearing for the Respondents 1 to 4 in I.A. No. 119 of 2002 has given him the copy of the same and therefore, the delay has occasioned not on account of his fault and also the same is not wilful.

It is to be noted that a Court of Law while dealing with Section 5 condonation of delay Application as per Limitation Act, 1963 has to adopt a lenient/liberal view and not supposed to adopt a pedantic approach. Instead a Court of law has to adopt a pragmatic, purposeful, meaningful, rational, practical and a common sense approach in dealing with Section 5 application. It is not the length and breadth of delay which is a material factor. By filing an application as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 belatedly, a party runs a serious risk. Moreover, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, then the deliverance of substantial justice is to be preferred, over riding the technicalities, as opined by this Court. Further more, by allowing Section 5 application filed under Limitation Act, the party will be permitted to enter into the main arena of legal proceedings and his cause can be decided on merits, of course, after providing due opportunities to both sides.

In the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 119 of 2002 filed by the Petitioner before the First Appellate Authority/learned First Additional Sub-Judge, Padmanabhapuram, it is clear that the revision Petitioner has mentioned that the second Respondent expired on 3/6/2011 and has come to know of the death of the second Respondent only on 24/8/2001 when the Advocates of Respondents 1 to 4 therein has given a copy of the same, which has been filed before the Court.

In the counter to I.A. No. 119 of 2002 filed by the Respondents 1 to 3, it is among other things stated that the delay cannot be condoned, etc.

Inasmuch as the revision Petitioner/first Defendant has stated in his affidavit in I.A. No. 119 of 2002 that he has come to know about the death of the second Respondent only on 24/8/2001 when the Respondents 1 to 4 counsel has given a copy of the same which has been filed into Court and in that process, there has occasioned a delay of sixteen days for filing the impleading petition, this Court by taking a lenient, pragmatic and a rational view, allows the Civil Revision Petition by directing the Petitioner/first Defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 300/-(Rupees three hundred only) to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to Madurai Bench of Madras High Court before 8/3/2011, failing which, it is made clear that the petition will stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.