High Court Observed – Application for Condonation of Delay Lacked Bona Fide and Sufficiency of Cause (Para 25)

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order, rejecting the application for condonation of delay, and observed that the delay lacked bona fide and sufficient cause. (Para 25)

MAJOR ACTS:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXIII, Rule 1(1) and Rule 1(3) – Section 151

2. Companies Act, 1956 – Incorporation and Business Operations of the Petitioner

NATURE OF THE LITIGATION:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Kalyan, allowing the application of the respondents for condonation of delay of 9 years, 4 months, and 18 days in filing an application to recall the order dated 20th April, 2013, which permitted the unconditional withdrawal of Suit R.C.S. No. 782 of 2012.

RELIEF SOUGHT:
Petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 22nd February, 2024, which condoned the delay and permitted the recall of the withdrawal order.

REASON FOR FILING THE CASE:
The petitioner challenged the Civil Judge’s order on the grounds that there was no sufficient cause to condone an inordinate delay of over 9 years and the application lacked bona fide reasons.

PRIOR DECISIONS:
The Civil Judge, Kalyan, had allowed the application for condonation of delay and permitted the respondents to file for recall of the withdrawal order.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Civil Judge was justified in condoning the delay of over 9 years in seeking recall of the withdrawal of the suit?

2. Whether the cause ascribed for the delay by the respondents qualified as sufficient and bona fide?

SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS:

• Petitioner’s Counsel: Argued that the delay was not justified, no sufficient cause was ascribed, and the application was a subterfuge to overturn earlier judicial decisions. (Para 5)

• Respondent’s Counsel: Argued that the trial court had rightly exercised its discretion in condoning the delay and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. (Para 6)

RATIO DECIDENDI:

1. The right of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1(1) of CPC is not subject to any restrictions unless the plaintiff is a minor or otherwise legally incapable. (Para 11)

2. The delay of over 9 years without sufficient and bona fide reasons cannot be condoned. (Para 20)

3. Courts must ensure that discretionary power in permitting recall of withdrawal is not exercised arbitrarily or without due cause. (Para 18)

SUBJECTS:
Condonation of Delay – Recall of Withdrawal – Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC – Sufficient Cause – Bona Fide – Discretionary Power – Civil Procedure – Status Quo Order