AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—IA-I/2012 is to condone the delay of 2433 days in filing IA-K/2012 to set-aside the abatement, while IA-III/2012 is filed to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No. 2 who is reported to have died on 5.6.2005. In the affidavit accompanying IA-I/2012 the legal representative of the second appellant submits that aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 16.1.2010 in RA 21/2008 of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Davangere confirming the Judgment and decree dated 14.6.2005 in O.S. 258/96 of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Channagiri, dismissing the Suit, has preferred the second appeal. According to the deponent the second appeal when listed for admission, on 15.4.2011 notice was ordered to the respondents and it is only when the RPAD was returned with the postal endorsement that Respondent No. 2 is ''dead'', that steps were taken immediately to file applications on 27.2.2012. It is further stated that the deponent came to know that the 2nd respondent died on 25.6.2005 which was not brought to the notice of the lower appellate court as the deponent did not have knowledge to file application to bring the legal representatives on record. It is stated that in the absence of there being no deliberate or intentional lapse, the delay requires to be condoned. Similar are the affidavits enclosed to the IA-II and IA-III of 2012. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the opponents and perused the pleadings. There can be no dispute that appellants and respondents are residents of the very same village, known as Tavarekere in Channagiri taluk (of Davanagere District and belong to the very same community, while the Suit instituted is for declaration, partition and separate possession of assets belonging to the members of the same family governed by the Muslim Law of succession. In the circumstances, the contention that the applicants had no knowledge of the death of the 2nd respondent, one of their own brother from the very same village in the year 2005 is unacceptable. Merely because Respondent No. 2 died in the year 2005 and legal representatives were not brought on record in RA 21/2008 or in O.S. 258/1996 during their pendency, it cannot be canvassed that the judgment and decree of dismissal of the Suit for the reliefs noticed supra, is void calling for interference.
It is no doubt true that the courts have evolved a principle that delay should be condoned with a liberal attitude, while at the same time, it is also true that on certain occasions courts have taken a different view, rather a stricter view, in any event if the explanation was not satisfactory have dismissed the applications. Therefore, there is no straight jacket formula to be applied to all cases uniformly, without reference to peculiar facts and circumstances of a given case. This aspect of the matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Others, , whence it was observed that the expression ''sufficient cause'' u/s 5 of the Limitation Act (36/1963) in the matter of condonation of delay, implies legal and adequate reasons meaning thereby adequate enough so much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. In the words of the learned Judges, it is said:
It embraces no more than that which provides a plenitude which, when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of existing circumstances and when viewed from the reasonable standard of practical and cautious men. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. These provisions give the Courts enough power and discretion to apply the law in a meaningful manner, while assuring that the purpose of enacting such a law does not stand frustrated.
Yet again the learned Judges observed thus:
Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court. In addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation for bringing the legal representatives on record.- should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay. The larger benches as well as equi-benches of this Court have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner.
In the facts of that case there being a delay of 778 days in filing the applications to bring on record the legal heirs of a deceased party, the Apex Court observed that the onus to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay lies upon the applicant and that the applicant therein to explain the delay filed a one page application stating that they were not aware of the pendency of the proceeding before court and came to know in March 2010 from their counsel that the case was listed for final disposal during vacation May 2010. In these circumstances, the Apex Court observed that the applicants were totally callous about pursuing their appeal and had acted irresponsibly and even with negligence did not approach the court with clean hands and consequently declined to accept the cause shown for the delay of 778 days. Applying the very same principles to the facts of this case, delay of 2433 days is inordinate. Everyday''s delay is not explained. Explanation offered is far from satisfactory. Negligence, inaction and lack of bonafides is attributable to the applicants.
In the result, application to condone the delay is rejected. Sequentially the other applications are rejected and as a consequence, the appeal stands dismissed.