Chada Venkatarama Sarma vs Bank of India and Another

Neeladri Rao, J.—The first respondent in ASSR No. 4377/87 on the file of the Third Addl,, Dist. Judge, Kakinada is the revision petitioner herein. The 1st respondent herein filed OS No. 215/84 in the court of the 1st Addl. Subordinate Judge, Kakinada for recovery of money due from the revision petitioner herein and the second respondent herein. That suit was decreed in part on 29-1-87. The trial court held that as the defendants in the suit are agriculturists, they are entitled to the benefits of Act 4 of 1938, by following the judgment of this court. But the Supreme Court held in Bank of India Vs. Vijay Transport and Others, that Act. 4/88 is not applicable to debts due to Nationalised banks. The 1st respondent herein preferred an appeal on 7-12-87. As there was delay of 39 days in preferring the appeal, IA No. 1474/87 was filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. It was pleaded that after receiving certified copies of the judgment on 16-10-87, a letter was addressed to the Zonal office on the same day for seeking instructions as to whether an appeal had to be preferred or not, and the Zonal officer by telephonic message on 7-12-87, instructed the 1st respondent herein to prefer the appeal. When P.W.1 was examined for the appellant-Bank, it was suggested to him that this appeal was preferred in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Vijay Transport and Ors. (1 supra). The Lower Court held that the appellant-bank justifiably waited till the judgment of the Supreme Court was pronounced for otherwise, it would be a waste of funds in preferring the appeal.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that as it was not so pleaded, it is an extraneous consideration and hence the order of the lower court has to be set aside. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had referred to the decision in Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., ; F.N. Roy Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, and Rup Diamonds and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, to contend that a right that was accrued to the decree-halder should not be lightly disturbed and hence the courts should not condone the delay unless each day''s delay has to be satisfactorily explained. But the learned counsel for the appellant-bank had relied on the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, to urge that administrative delays can be treated as justifiable cause for condoning delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

When it was suggested to P.W.1 by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal was now preferred in view of the judgment reported in Bank of India v. Rijay Transport and Ors. (1) supra and when the lower court had referred to the same in exercising the discretion in condoning the dely, it cannot be stated that either extraneous or irrelevant factors were taken into consideration by the lower court. When it is a case of exercising discretion, this court will not interfere in revision u/s 115 CPC. Further, in Collector, land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (5 supra) it was observed that even administrative delays can be treated as sufficient cause for condoning delay. Hence, the revision is dismissed. No costs.