The Calcutta High Court, through a single-judge bench led by Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, dismissed an Article 227 application challenging a judgment from the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in Alipore. The Court found no illegalities, irrationalities, or procedural improprieties in the lower court’s decision to condone the delay and revoke the abatement order. It emphasized that the limitations rules shouldn’t be used to undermine parties’ rights and that the term “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be broadly interpreted to promote substantial justice.

Background: Article 227

In the presented case, the petitioner argues that the opposing party, who claimed ownership of a specific property, initiated an eviction lawsuit against the petitioner concerning that property. The petitioner responded by submitting a Written Statement to contest the lawsuit. During the lawsuit’s progression, plaintiff 1, the opposing party, passed away. The petitioner contends that no action was taken on behalf of plaintiff 2 to legally substitute the deceased plaintiff’s heirs within the statutory limitation period, resulting in the abatement of the lawsuit against plaintiff 1 on approximately 27-09-2012.

The petitioner further argues that on 08-01-2013, the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff 1 filed an application under Order 22 Rule 9(2) along with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. They sought to set aside the abatement order concerning plaintiff 1 and replace themselves as the legal heirs in place of the original plaintiff 1. Moreover, they requested the condonation of the delay in filing this application. The petitioner opposed these applications, claiming that there were inconsistencies and deficiencies in the delay condonation application. Nonetheless, the lower court granted the applications.

Dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 08-08-2016 issued by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Alipore, which approved the aforementioned applications, the petitioner submitted an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the same.

Moot Points:

1. Whether the delay in submitting the application to set aside the abatement was deliberate or due to legitimate reasons?
2. Whether the lower court made an error in its decision to condone the delay and revoke the abatement order?

Parties’ Contentions:

The petitioner argued that there were significant discrepancies and deficiencies in the delay condonation application, and the trial court made an error by approving it without conducting a trial on the evidence. The petitioner asserted that delay should only be excused when there is no deliberate delay, no lack of good faith, no intentional inaction, or negligence on the part of the applicant. Furthermore, it was contended that plaintiff 2, who resided in the same house as plaintiff 1, failed to provide a valid explanation for not promptly taking steps to substitute the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff.

The opposing party contended that, based on the lawsuit’s pleadings, both plaintiff 1 and plaintiff 2 co-owned the property, giving any co-owner the right to file an eviction lawsuit against the tenant. As plaintiff 2 was still alive when plaintiff 1 passed away, the right to continue the lawsuit was not entirely extinguished. It was argued that there was only a 102-day delay in filing the substitution application, and this delay was not a result of intentional negligence or a lack of good faith. The contention was that plaintiff 2 consulted with their advocate in June 2012, and the delay was due to factors such as the bereavement period, puja vacation, and winter vacation, which prevented the application from being filed earlier.

Also Read- Rajasthan High Court categorizes Kurkure and Cheetos as ‘namkeen’, not ‘snacks’.

Court’s Analysis: Article 227

The Court noted that when plaintiff 1 passed away, plaintiff 2 was still part of the legal proceedings, indicating that the lawsuit had not entirely abated. The Court acknowledged the 102-day delay in filing the substitution and delay condonation applications.

Referring to established cases such as N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 123 and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao (2002) 3 195, the Court emphasized the need for a broad interpretation of the term “sufficient cause” as outlined in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to advance the cause of substantial justice. The Court determined that delay should not be automatically presumed as intentional, underscoring the importance of giving due consideration to the party seeking a delay condonation.

The Court concluded that the delay in this case was not intentional, and it was due to factors such as bereavement, consultations with an advocate, and court vacations. Therefore, the Court found that there was “sufficient cause” that justified the opposite party’s delay in filing the application on time.

Furthermore, the Court determined that the delay and laches on the part of the opposing party were genuine and unintentional. Consequently, the lower court’s decision to grant the condonation of delay and set aside the abatement order was deemed justified.

The Court stressed that the application of jurisdiction under Article 227 should be judicious, with its primary role being the correction of jurisdictional errors rather than the overturning of factual determinations.

“In the exercise of its authority under Article 227, the High Court typically exercises restraint in reviewing the decisions of lower courts to ensure they stay within their designated jurisdiction. The paramount aim is to guarantee that these courts adhere to the legal framework while exercising their jurisdiction.”

Court’s Decision:

The Court, after consideration, rejected the current application, as it discerned no substantial injustice, unlawful actions, or procedural impropriety in the lower court’s decision to condone the delay and revoke the abatement order.

Facebook