Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were the defendants in O.S. No. 48/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Periyapatna, filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2011. The appeal was filed with a delay of about 1000 days. Along with the appeal, the petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of the delay. The II Additional District Judge, Mysuru, by order dated 03.10.2015, rejected the application, holding that the explanation offered by the petitioners was not satisfactory. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the reasons given by the petitioners for the delay, which included that they were not aware of the judgment and decree, that they were illiterate villagers, and that they had to arrange for funds. The court found that the petitioners had not placed any material to show that they were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period of limitation. The court noted that the length of delay is not material, but the explanation must be reasonable and acceptable. The court also observed that the appellate court had considered the matter and exercised its discretion judiciously. The High Court held that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited and that the impugned order did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Sufficient Cause - The petitioners sought condonation of delay of about 1000 days in filing an appeal under Section 96 CPC against a judgment and decree in O.S. No. 48/2006. The appellate court rejected the application on the ground that the explanation for the delay was not satisfactory. The High Court held that the length of delay is not decisive, but the explanation must be reasonable and acceptable. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide a sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, does not act as an appellate court and cannot substitute its own discretion for that of the lower court unless the order is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error. The impugned order rejecting the condonation application was based on proper appreciation of facts and law, and no interference was warranted. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the II Additional District Judge, Mysuru, was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of about 1000 days in filing the appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the High Court should interfere with that order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the order of the II Additional District Judge, Mysuru, dated 03.10.2015, which rejected the application for condonation of delay.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Sufficient cause
- Liberal approach
- Length of delay
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Scope of interference
