Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Lalitha Kothari, filed three miscellaneous civil applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to prefer regular first appeals against a decree passed in a suit for specific performance. The appeals were Regular First Appeal No.971 of 2010, RFA No.972 of 2010, and RFA No.973 of 2010. The appellant was represented by Shri P.D. Surana, Advocate. The respondents in the respective appeals were V. Sathyanarayana Rao and Thirupathi Reddy (in Misc. Civil No.9695/2010), B.N. Harshath, B.N. Mynavathi, B.N. Shailaja, and Thirupathi Reddy (in Misc. Civil No.9661/2010), and V. Sathyanarayana Rao, V. Shivaji Rao, and Thirupathi Reddy (in Misc. Civil No.8863/2010). The respondents were represented by Shri S. Gangadhar Aithal and Shri N.G. Sreedhar for respondent No.1 in the first application, and by Shri S. Gangadhar Aithal for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the second application. Respondent No.2 in the first application and respondent No.4 in the second application were served but unrepresented. The appellant sought condonation of a delay of 3 days in filing the appeals, stating that the delay was due to awaiting certified copies of the decree. The court considered the applications and held that the delay was minimal and the explanation constituted sufficient cause. The court allowed the applications, permitting the appellant to prosecute the appeals, and directed that the appeals be listed for admission. The judgment was delivered by Justice Anand Byrareddy on 3rd March 2015.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sufficient Cause - The appellant sought condonation of delay of 3 days in filing appeals against a decree in a suit for specific performance - The court held that the delay was minimal and the explanation that the appellant was awaiting certified copies was sufficient - The court allowed the applications, observing that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning short delays (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 3 days in filing the regular first appeals should be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause?
Final Decision
The court allowed the miscellaneous civil applications, condoned the delay of 3 days, and permitted the appellant to prosecute the regular first appeals. The appeals were directed to be listed for admission.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Section 151 CPC
- Sufficient cause
- Liberal approach
- Delay of 3 days
- No prejudice to respondents
