The High Court set aside the trial court's order conditioning the condonation of delay on the deposit of half the decretal amount. The defect was deemed contrary to precedent requiring only the recording of sufficient cause.
The condition to deposit half of the decretal amount was set aside and the matter was remanded to decide the petition afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.351 of 2015
ORDER :
This revision is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by the petitioner-defendant, challenging the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, in I.A.No.753 of 2014 in O.S.No.849 of 2012, dated 11.11.2014, whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, condoned the delay of four months four days subject to deposit of half of the decretal amount into the Court within one month therefrom.
1 2002 (3) ALT 420
2
MSM, J C.R.P.No.351 of 2015
“The main suit in O.S.No.849/12 is for recovery of money based on promissory note that was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. If at all, the petitioner intend to contest the suit to prove his bonafides, he has to deposit half of the decretal amount into this court, subject to the said condition, the petition can be allowed and the delay of four months four days can be condoned.”
Act, the duty of the Court is to record its satisfaction whether the cause shown by the petitioner for failure to appear before the Court is a sufficient cause, which prevented him to appear before the Court and if the Court satisfies that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause, or, a cause which is beyond reasonable control of the petitioner, the Court can condone the delay by exercising the discretionary power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act instead of
3
MSM, J C.R.P.No.351 of 2015
recording such satisfaction that the petitioner was prevented by a sufficient cause or a cause which is beyond reasonable control of the petitioner. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, directed to deposit half of the decretal amount, such direction is contrary to principle laid down by this Court in CH. KRISHNAIAH v. CH. PRASADA RAO2 .
half of the decretal amount to the credit of the suit within one month from the date of the order is hereby set aside while remanding the matter to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahumndry, to decide the petition afresh and record a finding whether the petitioner has made out sufficient cause and decide the petition in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
18th April 2017
mar
2 AIR 2010 AP 19 Full Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a trial court can impose the condition of depositing half of the decretal amount while condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the condition imposed by the trial court is onerous and contrary to judicial precedents.
How the High Court should dispose of a civil revision challenging the imposition of such a condition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bathini Sambaiah v. Juluru NarayanReferred¶5
2002 (3) ALT 420
CH. KRISHNAIAH v. CH. PRASADA RAOApplied¶16
2 AIR 2010 AP 19 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PETITIONER-DEFENDANT
RESPONDENT
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
