Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 227 of 2016, filed a suit which was initially before the Pavi Jetpur Court, then transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, and subsequently to the Civil Judge, Baroda, and finally to the Civil Judge at Bodeli in 2016. Due to the multiple transfers, the petitioners claimed they were unaware of the location of the suit. They did not appear on the date of hearing, and on 14.11.2017, the suit was dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioners only came to know about the dismissal on 08.08.2019 through correspondence with the Police Commissioner, Chhota Udepur. They filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to set aside the dismissal, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bodeli, dismissed the delay condonation application on 22.09.2021, holding that the petitioners had not shown sufficient cause. The petitioners appealed, and the learned Additional District Judge, Chhotaudepur at Bodeli, allowed the appeal on 30.06.2022, condoning the delay and setting aside the trial court's order. The respondents then filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the appellate order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the facts and found sufficient cause for the delay. The court noted that the petitioners were not at fault for the multiple transfers of the suit and that they had acted diligently upon learning of the dismissal. The High Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the appellate order and dismissed the petition, upholding the condonation of delay.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Order IX Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 - The petitioners' suit was dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 8 CPC on 14.11.2017 due to non-appearance. The petitioners claimed they were unaware of the transfer of the suit from Vadodara to Bodeli and only learned of the dismissal on 08.08.2019 through police correspondence. The trial court dismissed the delay condonation application, but the appellate court condoned the delay, holding that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause. The High Court upheld the appellate order, finding no perversity or jurisdictional error. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 - Scope of Interference - The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless the impugned order is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error. The court found that the appellate court's order condoning delay was based on a plausible view of the evidence and did not warrant interference. (Paras 11-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional District Judge erred in condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the dismissal of the suit for default, and whether the impugned orders warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the appellate court's order dated 30/06/2022 condoning the delay. The court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the appellate order and held that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for the delay.
Law Points
- Order IX Rule 8 CPC
- Section 5 Limitation Act
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Transfer of suit
- Dismissal for default
- Restoration of suit
