9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed Under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code of Civil Procedure") by which the order dated 05.08.2014 passed in Misc. Case No. 223 of 2006 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the application filed Under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure came to be set aside and thereby the appeal was allowed. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as under: a. The suit Schedule property bearing Sy. No. 1/11 situated at Byrasandra, Bangalore, Karnataka measuring 45 yards East to West and 55 yards North to South was purchased by one Venkatappa in the year 1916. Thereafter, the said Venkatappa sold a portion of the suit property and retained the balanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any relief with regard to the suit property. e. Thereafter on the very same cause of action, the deceased Respondent No. 1 filed O.S. No. 104/1972 seeking similar reliefs against the Appellants. The said suit came to be dismissed on merits vide judgment and Order dated 08.12.1975. f. Despite failing in two rounds of proceedings and not challenging the Orders passed in O.S. No. 33/1971 and O.S No. 104/1972, the deceased Respondent proceeded to file yet one another suit for possession and other reliefs by way of O.S. No. 603/1977 before the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The said suit came to be eventually renumbered as O.S. No. 1833/1980. g. The O.S. No. 1833/1980 came to be dismissed on the first occasion for default in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents proceeded to challenge the Order dated 16.11.2005 before the High Court, in W.P No. 26660/2005 which came to be dismissed as well. j. It is only thereafter on 06.03.2006 that the Respondents proceeded to file an application for recall in Misc. Case No. 223/2006 before the Trial Court. The Trial Court vide a detailed Order dated 05.08.2014 dismissed the Misc. Case No. 223/2006 holding as under: a) that the rights of the deceased Respondent No. 1 had already been decided much prior in the suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 33/1971 itself wherein it had been held that the deceased Respondent No. 1 was not a bona fide purchaser and that a similar suit in O.S. No. 104/1972 which arose out of the same cause of action had also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Writ Petition thereby condoning the delay of about 2200 days. 4. In such circumstances referred to above, the Appellants are here before this Court with the present appeal. 5. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the High Court proceeded to condone the delay of about 2200 days without adverting to any of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting application filed for recall. 6. He submitted that the High Court by its impugned order could be said to have proceeded to revive a suit which had been instituted in the year 1977 i.e., a suit which had been instituted about 48 years ago and is still at the stage of leading evidence. 7. He submitted that there is a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the year 1983. The same was restored in 1984. (iii) The Defendant No. 4 in Original Suit No. 1833 of 1980, namely, Nagaraja passed away on 4.12.1999. (iv) The Respondents herein were granted opportunities on 6.03.2000, 18.7.2000 and 22.8.2000 respectively to bring the legal heirs of the Defendant No. 4 on record. Having failed to do so the suit ultimately came to be dismissed as having stood abated. (v) The rights of the deceased Respondent No. 1 had already been decided in the suit filed for specific performance i.e. the Original Suit No. 33 of 1971. (vi) The Respondents having obtained the certified copies on 26.8.2005 preferred the Misc. Case No. 223 of 2006 on 06.03.2006. (vii) Indisputably, there is a delay of 6 years (ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The Rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
