Akkala Sambaiah and Another vs Bank of India, Tenali Branch

A. Hanumanthu, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the order of dismissal dated 17-2-1998 passed in I.A. No. 516 of 1996 in an unnumbered appeal (C.F.R. No. 3496 of 1996) on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in Guntur District.

The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 68 of 1990 which is a money suit. The appellants-Defendants contested that suit. The matter was posted for their evidence to 29-2-1996. But the defendants failed to attend the Court on that day and subsequently the suit was decreed ex parte on 6-3-1996. Later on they preferred the appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 44 days in preferring the appeal. The appellants came up with an explanation for the said delay in preferring the appeal and also for not attending the Court on the date on which the suit was posted for their evidence. It is stated in the petitioners'' affidavit that as their granddaughter died under suspicious circumstances on 25-2-1996 they immediately went there and attended to her last rites and stayed there and thus they could not attend the Court on that day. The lower Court dismissed the application by holding that the explanation is not satisfactory and that the total period of delay is 56 days. As against that order, the defendants have come up with this appeal.

Though notice has been served on the respondent, the respondent did not choose to appear either in person or through Counsel in this appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order.

The lower Court failed to keep it in mind that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury so suffered. Further, there is no presumption that the delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. The Supreme Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" u/s 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors., 1996 (5) Supreme 75; N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, .

In the instant case, there is no reason to hold that the delay in preferring the appeal was wilful and deliberate or with a view to protract the matter. Further, the petitioners are not to gain anything by such an act. The explanation that the appellants could not attend the Court on the day fixed for their evidence in the trial Court was due to the sudden demise of their granddaughter. There is no reason to disbelieve the said explanation. Moreover, this appeal also has not been contested by the respondent.

Considering the facts and circumstances in this case, the explanation of the appellants for the delay in preferring the appeal is accepted. Hence, the C.M.A. is allowed. The order of dismissal passed in I.A. No. 516 of 1996 is set aside and I.A. No. 516 of 1996 is allowed. No costs.