Allowed

M/S. Welset Polypack (P) Ltd., v. Nerudi Nagabhushanam and Another

Telangana HC21 Sept 2022CRP/2956/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revising an order dismissing an application to set aside a suit dismissal for non-appearance, the court applied principles from Esha Bhattacharjee holding change of management a sufficient cause. The impugned order was set aside, the application allowed, and the suit directed for expedited disposal.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 07.04.2012 is set aside. I.A.No. 1361 is allowed. Suit proceedings to be disposed of expeditiously.

M/S. Welset Polypack (P) Ltd., Vs Nerudi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2956 OF 2012

¶6

Petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, againsUaggrieved by the Order dated 07-04-2012, l.A.No. 1361 of 201 1 in O.S.No. 230 of 2008 Dated 07-042012, Passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RangaReddy District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/S. WELSET POLYPACK (P) LTD.,, lncorporated under the Provisions of lndian Companies Act 1956, Situated at Ghanpur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Mr. P. Aravind Ayyappa S/o P. Srinivasa Prabhu, 38 yrs, Private Services

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. Nerudi Nagabhushanam, S/o Nerudi Bhoomaiah, Agriculture S/o Ghanpur Village, Medhcal Mandal, R.R. District.

¶12

Nerudi Ramulu, S/o Nerudi Bhoomaiah, Agriculture S/o Ghanpur Village, Medhcal Mandal, R.R. District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(CRPMP. NO: 3929 OF 2012)

¶15

Petition under Section^'t 51 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to expedite the hearing of the revision.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. N. MANOHAR and C. HANUMANTH REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶21

CIVIL RNVISION PETITION NO.2956 OF 2OL2

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This revision has been directed against the order dated 07.04.2Ct12 in LA.No.1361 of 2011 in O.S.No.230 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶24

The pleadings show that the petitioner and the respondents herein filed suits against each other. Both the suits were corning up for trial. The present suit i.e., O.S.No.230 of 2OO8 was filed by the petitioner for perpetual injunction. While so, the petitioner could not appear on 21 .O9.2O11, and on account of non-appearance, the suit was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No. 1361 of 2Ol1 seeking to set aside the order of dismissal by condoning the delay of 56 days in filing the petition for setting aside the dismissal order. The reasons given for non-appearance were that previously one Pankaj Goyal, the Director, was taking care of the suit proceedings; that in view of change of management during the pendency of the suit, the present Signatory viz., P.Aravind Ayyappa is authorized to prosecute the suit; and that on account of such changerdt management, and also

¶25

¶26

due to boycott of Courts by the Advocates, the petitioner could not present on 21.09.201 1.

¶27

The respondents filed counter in I.A.No.1361 of 2011 stating that there was no proper explalation for the delay and that when other suit has been contesting by the petitioner, he cannot urge the ground of change of management for its non-appearance on the said date.

¶28

The Court below, on appreciation of the pleadings and contentions, held that no proper explanation was given by the petitioner for condonation of delay and dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, the present Civii Revision Petition has been filed.

¶29

Heard both sides.

¶30

The Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v Mg Commit. of Ranghunathpur Nafar Academyl culled out the principles relating to condonation of delay and they read as under:

¶31

"2¹ . From the aforesaid^{authorities the principies} that can broadly be culled:"r_1-,

¶32

¶33

' lzor:;^{rz scc oao}

¶34

)

¶35

¶36

2l.l 1l 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.

¶37

21.2 ii) The terms 'sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose reqard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

¶38

21.3 iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

¶39

2l .4 ivl 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.

¶40

21.5 v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

¶41

21.6 vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure ofjustice.

¶42

2L7 vill^'lhe concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

¶43

21.8 viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a dela;r 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 u,hereas the second calls for a Iiberal delineation.

¶44

21.9 ixl The conduct, behaviour and attitude ol a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the lundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance ol justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot !e given a total go by in thc name of liberal approach. 7'

¶45

¶46

21.10 x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigiiant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

¶47

21.11 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.

¶48

21.12 xill 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.

¶49

2 1 . 13 xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.

¶50

To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: -

¶51

.22.1 al An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half }:.azard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to^justice dispensation system.

¶52

22.2 bl An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.

¶53

22.3 cl Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.

¶54

22.4 dl The increasing tertdency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."

¶55

¶56

The considerations for condoning the delay in respect of inordinate delay and the delay for short duration are different. In the former case, the doctrine of prejudice is applied, and in the latter case, it cannot be applied. The ultimate goal of the Courts is to determine the rights of the partles on merits, but not to deny the^justice on technicalities.

¶57

In the present case, there is no material found from the impugned order to show that the plaintiffs signatory was representr.ng the other suit. Hence, it cannot be presumed that he was prosecuting the other suit on the particular date of dismissa-l. The reason given by the petitioner for non-appearance was on account of change of management and chalge of authorised signatory. Such explanation is plausible and believable, since the delay is of very shorter duration of 56 days. Therefore, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay instead of sticking on to the hyper technicalities in denying the justice technical grounds.

¶58

When both the suits are pending, to meet the ends of justice, they require to be heard together. Therefore, this

¶59

¶60

Court feels that the impugned order requires to be set aside.

¶61

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 07.O4.2O12 in I.A.No.1361 of 201i in O.S.No.230 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. Consequentiy, I.A.No.136 1 of 2Oll in O.S.No.23O of 2OO8 is allowed. Since the suit is of the year 2OO8, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit proceedings, AS expeditiously as possible. Both the parties are directed to cooperate for early disposal of the suit proceedings. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending,

¶62

shall stand closed.

¶63

Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶64

To,

¶65

ECTTON OFFTCER

¶66

One CC to Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, RangaReddy District

¶67

One CC to SRl. N. MANOHAR, Advocate tOpUCl

¶68

One CC to SRl. SR|N|VAS POLAVARAPU, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies

¶69

One Spare Copy PSR --Y

HIGH COURT

ML, J

DATED:21 109i2022

ORDER

e T Tc
Y\l
?t?l L
1 1 J[\l
()

\ft<br> D P,{T t,

¶75

CRP.No.2956 of 2012

¶76

CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶77

1)-^12- 15

M/S. Welset Polypack (P) Ltd., v. Nerudi Nagabhushanam and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Welset Polypack (P) Ltd., v. Nerudi Nagabhushanam and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Ramamurthy Vs The land Acquisition Officer/

Mohd Faheemuddin Hyderabad Vs Mahavir Pershad and 5

Dm.,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Nizam Vs R.Balaiah , Devanna and 3 Ors.

Thumalluri Samuel Vs Beesa Galaiah

Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan Vs A.P. State Wakf Board and Another

Apsrtc Hyderabad Vs Ahmedi Begum and Another