Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were the respondents in an appeal (R.A. No. 22/2017) before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, challenged the order dated 13.03.2019 that condoned a delay of 1137 days in filing the appeal. The appeal was filed by the first respondent against a decree or order. The petitioners argued that the lower appellate court's order was perverse and capricious because it condoned such an inordinate delay without sufficient cause and without imposing costs as required under Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, found that the impugned order suffered from a demonstrable error of law on its face. The court noted that the lower court had not recorded any satisfaction that the delay was for sufficient cause, nor had it imposed costs as a condition for condonation. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The court directed that the delay condonation application be decided afresh, keeping in mind the principles laid down in Order XLI Rule 3A CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Order XLI Rule 3A CPC - Inordinate Delay - The court considered whether a delay of 1137 days in filing an appeal could be condoned without sufficient explanation and without imposing costs. The High Court held that the lower appellate court's order was perverse and capricious as it failed to record satisfaction that the delay was for sufficient cause and did not impose costs as mandated by Order XLI Rule 3A CPC. (Paras 1-3)
B) Civil Procedure - Limitation Act - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The court examined the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court held that the explanation offered for the delay of 1137 days was not satisfactory and the lower court's order condoning delay without proper reasoning was liable to be set aside. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court erred in condoning an inordinate delay of 1137 days in filing the appeal without sufficient cause and without imposing costs as required under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned order dated 13.03.2019, and remitted the matter back to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration of the delay condonation application in accordance with law, keeping in mind the principles of Order XLI Rule 3A CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Order XLI Rule 3A CPC
- Section 5 Limitation Act
- Inordinate delay
- Sufficient cause
- Costs as condition
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (07) 26
Writ Petition Nos.15673-674 of 2019 (GM-CPC)
Smt. Nagarathnamma and Smt. Sumithra
Sri. Chandrashekara Swamigalu and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order condoning delay in filing an appeal.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought invalidation of the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, condoning a delay of 1137 days in filing the appeal.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the lower appellate court erred in condoning the inordinate delay without sufficient cause and without imposing costs as required under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC.
Previous Decisions
The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in R.A. No. 22/2017, allowed I.A. No. 1 filed under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC and condoned the delay of 1137 days on costs.
Issues
Whether the lower appellate court's order condoning a delay of 1137 days in filing the appeal was perverse and capricious?
Whether the lower court failed to record satisfaction of sufficient cause and impose costs as mandated by Order XLI Rule 3A CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order has a demonstrable error of law on its face inasmuch as such an inordinate delay was condoned without sufficient cause and without imposing costs.
Ratio Decidendi
An order condoning an inordinate delay in filing an appeal must record satisfaction that the delay was for sufficient cause and must impose costs as a condition for condonation under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC; failure to do so renders the order perverse and liable to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioners being the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in an appeal in RA.No.22/2017 filed by the first respondent herein are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking invalidation of the order dated 13.03.2019 ... whereby the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, having favoured respondents I.A.No.1 filed under Order XLI Rule 3(A) of CPC, 1908 on costs, has condoned a delay of 1137 days brooked in filing of the subject appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that, the impugned order has a demonstrable error of law on its face inasmuch as such an inordinate delay ...
Procedural History
The first respondent filed an appeal (R.A. No. 22/2017) before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, along with an application (I.A. No. 1) under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC seeking condonation of delay of 1137 days. The lower court allowed the application and condoned the delay on costs. Aggrieved, the petitioners (respondents in the appeal) filed the present writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.03.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XLI Rule 3A
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Constitution of India: Article 227
