THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4846 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) by the petitioner/ defendant No.1 assailing the order dated 13.02.2007 in I.A.No.834 of 2006 in O.S.No.394 of 2002 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2. That application in I.A.No.834 of 2006 was filed by the defendant No.1 to condone the delay of 61 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 21.08.2006 in O.S.No.394 of 2002. The learned XII Additional Chief Judge has dismissed the said application holding that no sufficient grounds were mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay and the intention of the petitioner appears to be only to drag on the proceedings and that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not bonafide. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/State Bank of India, whereas notice was not served for the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant despite best efforts. Though Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, AVR,J CRP_4846_2009 Page 2 of 9 Advocate has filed Vakalat, none appeared on behalf of 1st respondent. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner have received due consideration of this Court. 4. Perused the record. 5. This civil revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 13.02.2007 in I.A.No.834 of 2006 in O.S.No.394 of 2002 wherein the learned Judge of the trial Court has dismissed the said application to condone the delay of 61 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree. As per the material available on record, it is evident that in the Original Suit in O.S.No.394 of 2002 the 1st defendant has made appearance, filed written statement, cross-examined PWs.1 to 5, the evidence of plaintiff was closed on 01.04.2005, thereafter the suit was adjourned for defendants’ evidence. The 1st defendant having taken sufficient time for adducing his evidence, finally filed his evidence affidavit on 25.04.2006 i.e. nearly after one year of completion of plaintiff’s evidence. Thereafter, at his request, the suit was adjourned for exhibiting the documents and for cross-examination and the Original Suit underwent several adjournments on 25.04.2006, 05.06.2006, 12.06.2006 AVR,J CRP_4846_2009 Page 3 of 9 and 20.06.2006. It appears as per the orders of learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the Original Suit was transferred to the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and after transfer, the matter was adjourned twice, finally on 21.08.2006 since there was no response and the petitioner/1st defendant failed to appear, the Original Suit was adjourned on payment of cost. Since the cost was not paid and the condition was not complied, the trial Court while extracting the docket proceedings dated 10.08.2006, decreed the Original Suit as per judgment and decree dated 21.08.2006. In such circumstances, the learned Judge of the trial Court, while extracting the docket proceedings, stated above indicating the delay that has occurred in the Original Suit due to the inaction on behalf of the 1st defendant, has dismissed the said application. 6. In this context, I may refer to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Mg.Commit. of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others1 wherein the Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 5 of the 1 2013(12) SCC 649 AVR,J CRP_4846_2009 Page 4 of 9 Limitation Act regarding condonation of delay, summarised the principles as follows:- (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and AVR,J CRP_4846_2009 Page 5 of 9 cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. AVR,J CRP_4846_2009 Page 6 of 9 (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 7. The law consistently laid down by the Apex Court says that the word ‘sufficient cause’ must be construed liberally to meet the ends of justice without adopting pedantic approach. But, exception to this test to be applied is whether the petitioner made out a sufficient cause or not? Thus, the Court has to examine the circumstances and if the Court satisfied that the cause shown by the petitioner is beyond his control, such cause is to be accepted as sufficient cause, which prevented the petitioner from appearing before the Court on specified date. If the Court finds AVR,J CRP_4846_2009 Page 7 of 9 that the petitioner is negligent and deliberately protracting the proceedings for one reason or the other, such person is disentitled to claim the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Even for applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee (referred supra), the petitioner failed to place any cogent material before this Court or before the trial Court giving satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay. 8. Thus, the law is well settled, the term "sufficient cause" should be understood in its proper spirit, substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that the concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. The conduct, behaviour and attitude of the party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into AVR,J CRP_4846_2009 Page 8 of 9 consideration. 9. In the case on hand, the revision petitioner has participated in the suit proceedings, filed his written statement after settlement of issues, cross- examined PWs.1 to 5. After closure of plaintiff’s evidence the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 has taken more than one year for filing his evidence affidavit. Subsequent to filing of his evidence affidavit also he was protracting the litigation to the possible extent deliberately and allowed the proceedings to be continued. Finally the trial Court, having vexed with his attitude, eschewed his evidence from consideration as he has failed to pay the cost and to appear before the Court for cross-examination. The ex-parte decree was passed on 21.08.2006. 10. Original Suit is filed by the plaintiff Bank against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of suit claim, almost eight issues were framed based on the pleadings. Having regard to the facts indicated above, the trial Court has pronounced the judgment on AVR,J CRP_4846_2009 Page 9 of 9 21.08.2006 by appreciating the entire material available on record. In such facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and the petition is devoid of merits and does not deserve any consideration. 11. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order impugned dated 13.02.2007 in I.A.No.834 of 2006 in O.S.No.394 of 2002 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any pending, shall stands cancelled. ________________________________ A.VENKATESWHARA REDDY, J Dated : 16-12-2022 Abb