Case Note & Summary
The Civil Revision Petition was filed by Kumaran, the defendant in O.S.No.129/2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur. The respondents (plaintiffs) had filed the suit for declaration of title, mandatory injunction, and permanent injunction. The petitioner filed a written statement but thereafter remained absent, leading to an exparte decree being passed against him on 10.06.2024. The petitioner then filed I.A.No.2/2024 to condone the delay of 70 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. In his affidavit, the petitioner stated that due to ill-health, he was unable to contact his counsel on the day of the exparte decree, and that the delay also occurred due to the death of the first plaintiff and the amended plaint. The 6th respondent filed a counter denying the allegations and contending that the petitioner had remained exparte throughout. The Trial Court dismissed the application, leading to the present revision. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay and not be hyper-technical. It held that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay, as the reasons of ill-health and the death of the first plaintiff were plausible. The court set aside the Trial Court's order and condoned the delay, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,000 to the respondents. The revision petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner, defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction, remained absent and an exparte decree was passed on 10.06.2024. He filed an application to condone the delay of 70 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree, citing ill-health and the death of the first plaintiff. The Trial Court dismissed the application. The High Court held that the courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay and not be hyper-technical, and that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause. The order of the Trial Court was set aside and the delay was condoned subject to payment of costs. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Exparte Decree - Setting Aside - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court emphasized that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, and that the length of delay is not material if the cause is explained. The petitioner's ill-health and the death of the first plaintiff were considered sufficient cause. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application to condone the delay of 70 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree, and whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 16.12.2024 in I.A.No.2/2024 in O.S.No.129/2016 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sholinghur is set aside. The delay of 70 days is condoned subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,000 to the respondents. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within three months.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- liberal approach
- sufficient cause
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 115 of CPC
- exparte decree
- setting aside exparte decree
