AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.A. Britto, J.—This Writ Petition is directed against order dated 22/12/2009 of the learned Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, by which the learned Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of 8 months, 24 days in filing a revision petition before the said Tribunal. The petitioner along with her husband and mother in law were the defendants in a suit filed for their eviction being Civil Suit No. 357/2000/ C. The petitioner and her husband had raised a plea of mundkarship and the same was referred to the Mamlatdar for his decision. The issue was decided by the Mamlatdar on 13/01/2006 in the negative. The petitioner and her husband preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collector who was pleased to dismiss the same on 22/01/2008. It is against this decision that the petitioner filed a revision with an application for condonation of delay.
The plaintiffs in the said civil suit then filed an application for reviving the suit on 29/04/2008, before the learned Civil Judge and the suit was taken up for hearing after issuing notices to the defendants. The evidence of the defendants (including the petitioner) was closed on 23/12/2008. The suit was then decreed. An appeal was filed against the decree being RCA No. 19/2009 and the same was dismissed on 10/08/2009 and presently execution proceedings have been initiated on 6/01/2010 bearing No. 3/2010/II before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao.
The petitioner then filed a revision, with an application for condonation of delay on 29/12/2008, against the order of the Deputy Collector, contending that she was sick from 5/01/2008 to 22/12/2008 with hypertension and cervical spondylosis and was under medical advice and was advised strict bed rest and to avoid walking and travelling. She submitted a medical certificate dated 22/12/2008 issued by one Dr. Uday Humraskar. It is the case of the petitioner that her mother in law left Goa to reside with her other son, residing abroad, while the case was pending before the Deputy Collector; that she had depended on her husband to follow up the case and who had arranged to file an application for certified copy on 14/02/2008 and collect the same on 28/03/2008, but thereafter, there was serious dispute between her and her husband and he abandoned the conjugal domicile and deserted the petitioner with the responsibility of 2 minor children from April, 2008. The application was contested by the plaintiffs in the said civil suit, and, the learned Presiding Officer of the Administrative Tribunal looking at the medical certificate observed that it was issued to the petitioner to join her duties and not to produce in Court and that it also did not mention that the applicant was bed ridden and therefore the permissible activity of the petitioner could not be ascertained on the basis of the said medical certificate. The learned Tribunal also noted that records of the civil appeal showed that her husband was served at the same address which was given by her and therefore her statement that he had left the house and stopped coming home from April, 2008 could not be accepted. The learned Tribunal also observed that the application for condonation had to be looked into from the backdrop of the civil litigation which was in progress between the parties and after the order of the Deputy Collector the matter was taken up by the learned Civil Judge, after service of notice on the petitioner and others. The Tribunal also noted that the defendants (including the petitioner herein) had sought adjournments on one or other grounds and the evidence was closed for orders on 23/12/2008 and that it was shown that the matter of the Civil Court was followed by the petitioner. The learned Tribunal again referred to the medical certificate which showed that the petitioner was fit from 23/12/2008 which coincidentally also happened to be the date on which the defence evidence was closed in the said civil suit. The learned Tribunal also noted that the medical certificate was not specific about the absolute inability in order to ascertain the reasonableness of inaction on the part of the petitioner which had to be looked into in the backdrop of incorrect statement made about her husband''s residence, inaction in the suit after alleged recovery and preferring to file revision, which casts a shadow on the application for condonation of delay. The learned Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands.
Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner finds fault in the observation of the learned Tribunal and submits that the petitioner was not required to explain the delay with absolute reasonableness. Learned Senior Counsel fairly concedes that the petitioner was served in the suit and the appeal filed therefrom, after the order of the Deputy Collector dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants (including the petitioner), but submits that there was no purpose in contesting the civil suit. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioner was not to gain by delaying the filing of revision. Learned Counsel further submits that in fact the learned Tribunal has not disbelieved the certificate issued by the said medical Officer.
In my view, the view held by the learned Tribunal is a plausible view and therefore need not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The medical certificate only states that the petitioner was under the treatment of the said Doctor from 5/01/2008 to 22/12/2008 and she had recovered from signs and symptoms of hypertension and cervical spondylosis. The certificate is awfully silent to say whether the petitioner was advised any bed rest or whether the petitioner was advised not to walk or travel. That was absolutely necessary, considering that both hypertension and spondylosis are modern lifestyle ailments, with which people carry on their day to day normal activities. It appears that the said medical certificate was tailor made only to file the application for condonation of delay. There is no reason why, if her husband could have collected the certified copies, why he could not pursue the filing of revision petition. There was nothing to support her plea that her husband had deserted her in April, 2009, but on the contrary the learned Tribunal had found that her husband was served at the same address. The petitioner had conveniently not set out the dates on which they sought adjournments in the civil suit. The judgment of the learned Civil Judge dated 12/01/2009 records that the defendants sought adjournments on one or other grounds and their evidence was closed on 23/12/2008. Some of these adjournments must have been sought by the petitioner along with her husband from 5/01/2008 to 22/12/2008. It is well settled that the term "sufficient cause" has always been liberally construed, with a view to advance justice, for which Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been enacted. Courts are generally not over strict in expecting such proof of suggested cause as it would accept for holding a certain fact established because the question does not relate to the merits of the dispute between the parties and if delay is condoned the merits of the dispute can be determined. However, this does not mean that Court should readily accept whatever the party alleges to explain away his default. If the Courts accept anything and everything stated by a party, then such a party will have the last laugh at the cost of his adversary. The Courts are certainly required to scruitinize the cause shown and would be justified in considering the merits of the evidence led to establish the cause. Elasticity of the expression "sufficient cause" does not mean that it can be stretched to a breaking point. Courts also are required to take note of the fact that a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routine like manner.
Here, we find that the petitioner and her husband (defendants No. 1 & 2) pursued the suit, tried to delay the same, and even filed an appeal when the suit was decreed against them. The petitioner and her husband were very much before the civil court between 29/04/2008 and 23/12/2008 contesting the suit and if that be the case the petitioner could not have been prevented from any sickness from 5/01/2008 to 22/12/2008 from filing a revision against the order of the Deputy Collector. In the light of the above, I find there is no merit in this writ petition and, consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.