Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa considered a writ petition challenging the order of the Trial Court dated 14.10.2019, which rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a written statement. The petitioner, a married woman residing in Pernem, Goa, had filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing her written statement in a proceeding before the Trial Court, referred to as MP No. 56 of 2018/B. She claimed that the delay was only 30 days, but the record reflected a delay of about 185 days. The Trial Court rejected the application, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. The petitioner attributed the delay to her indifferent health, lack of assistance, and difficulty in seeking help from doctors and lawyers. She also stated that her tailoring work had substantially reduced due to health issues. The respondent, a bank employee, opposed the condonation. The respondent's counsel pointed out that the delay was actually 185 days and not 30 days as claimed. It was also submitted that in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, the respondent had already paid a lump sum maintenance of ₹2,25,000 to the petitioner. The High Court found that the Trial Court had not given sufficient emphasis to the cause shown by the petitioner and had laid undue emphasis on the length of delay. The Court held that in matters of condonation of delay, the main consideration is the quality of the cause shown and not merely the length of delay. It noted that there was nothing on record to indicate any malafide reason or intentional delay on the petitioner's part. Although condonation would cause some prejudice to the respondent, the Court held that such prejudice could be suitably compensated by awarding costs. Initially inclined to impose costs of ₹25,000, the Court reduced the amount to ₹15,000 considering the petitioner's financial condition and the fact that the respondent had already paid maintenance. The High Court set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay, and directed that the written statement be taken on record subject to the petitioner paying costs of ₹15,000 within two weeks, i.e., on or before 23.07.2021, to the respondent or depositing the amount before the Trial Court. It further directed that if the payment was not made by that date, the petition would stand dismissed. The interim order staying proceedings was vacated, and the parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26.07.2021 at 10:00 a.m. The Trial Court was instructed to dispose of MP No. 56 of 2018/B expeditiously and in any case within four months from the date the parties file an authenticated copy of the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Written Statement - Not mentioned - In matters of condonation of delay in filing written statement, length of delay is one consideration but the main consideration is quality of the cause shown to explain the delay. The Trial Court laid undue emphasis on the length of delay (about 185 days) rather than the petitioner's hardships, indifferent health, lack of assistance, and difficulty in seeking medical/legal help. Held that the order rejecting condonation was unsustainable and set aside. (Paras 4-9) B) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Prejudice and Malafide - Not mentioned - Delay condonation may cause prejudice to the opposite party, but when there is no record of malafide or intentional delay, such prejudice can be suitably compensated by an award of costs. The petitioner's health issues and reduced tailoring work supported the cause shown. Held that costs of ₹15,000 be imposed as a pre-condition for condonation and taking written statement on record. (Paras 10-14) C) Civil Procedure - Conditional Condonation - Costs and Directions - Not mentioned - The impugned order was set aside and delay condoned, but written statement to be taken on record only if petitioner paid/deposited ₹15,000 within two weeks (by 23.07.2021) to respondent or Trial Court. If no payment, petition deemed dismissed; interim order vacated; parties to appear before Trial Court on 26.07.2021; Trial Court directed to dispose MP No.56 of 2018/B expeditiously within four months. Held that conditional relief balances prejudice and equitable considerations. (Paras 15-19) D) Family Law - Domestic Violence Act - Maintenance - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Not mentioned - Respondent had paid lump sum maintenance of ₹2,25,000 to petitioner under Domestic Violence Act; this fact and respondent's status as bank employee influenced the High Court to reduce costs from ₹25,000 to ₹15,000. Held that the petitioner's inability to pay higher costs and prior maintenance payment warranted reduced costs. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing written statement, and whether such delay should be condoned in the facts and circumstances.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The impugned order dated 14.10.2019 set aside. Delay in filing written statement condoned. Written statement to be taken on record subject to petitioner paying costs of ₹15,000 to respondent within two weeks i.e., on or before 23.07.2021, or depositing the amount before Trial Court. If payment/deposit not made by 23.07.2021, the petition shall be deemed dismissed. Interim order staying proceedings vacated. Parties directed to appear before Trial Court on 26.07.2021 at 10:00 a.m. Trial Court directed to dispose of MP No.56 of 2018/B expeditiously within four months from the date parties file authenticated copy of this order.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- quality of cause shown
- prejudice compensable by costs
- no malafide
- writ jurisdiction
