Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. M Rathnavarma Padival, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging an order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, allowing I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in an unnumbered Regular Appeal (later numbered as R.A. No. 75/2014). The background of the case is that the plaintiff (respondent) had filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.111/1997 in respect of suit schedule property, which was decreed by judgment and decree dated 23.07.1998. Being aggrieved, the defendants (respondents herein) filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, but it was belatedly presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The respondents filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay, which was allowed by the trial court on payment of costs of Rs.2,000. The petitioner challenged this order in the present revision petition. The High Court heard arguments from Sri G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, and Sri Srivatsa, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. The court perused the impugned order and the facts. The court noted that the trial court had allowed the application on cost, and the petitioner had not demonstrated any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of discretion by the trial court. The High Court held that the order did not warrant interference under Section 115 CPC and dismissed the revision petition. The decision was pronounced on 05.01.2015.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The court considered whether a delay of about 12 years in filing an appeal against a decree in a suit for permanent injunction could be condoned. The trial court allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs.2,000. The High Court held that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously and that the petitioner had not made out any ground for interference under Section 115 CPC. (Paras 1-4) B) Civil Procedure Code - Revision - Section 115 - Scope - The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC and held that the order allowing condonation of delay did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for filing an appeal against a decree passed in a suit for permanent injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 20.10.2011 allowing I.A.No.1 under Section 5 of Limitation Act on payment of costs of Rs.2,000.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Sufficient cause
- Liberal approach
- Delay of 12 years
- Appeal against decree
- Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC
