Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rupchand Rajmalji Jain (Sancheti), was defendant No.2 in a suit filed before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The suit was originally filed in the High Court and later transferred to the City Civil Court. On 11 September 2012, the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court passed an order directing the suit to proceed without the written statement of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an unregistered Notice of Motion on 24 February 2015 seeking condonation of delay of 902 days in setting aside that order. The trial court dismissed the Notice of Motion, leading to the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that he was not aware of the order as his advocate had not informed him, and that he was pursuing other proceedings. The respondents contended that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and had deliberately delayed. The High Court examined the reasons given by the petitioner and found them insufficient. The court noted that the petitioner had appeared in the suit through counsel and had filed a written statement earlier, but later failed to file a fresh written statement after amendment. The court held that the trial court's discretion in refusing condonation was not perverse and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The petitioner sought condonation of 902 days delay in filing an application to set aside an order directing the suit to proceed without his written statement. The court held that the explanation for the delay was not satisfactory and the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause. The trial court's order refusing condonation was upheld. (Paras 1-18) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's discretion in refusing condonation of delay was not shown to be erroneous. (Paras 2, 18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 902 days in filing an application to set aside an order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master directing the suit to proceed without the written statement of the petitioner.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Order IX Rule 7 of CPC
- Limitation Act
- 1963
