Litigation Should Not Be Terminated By Default, Cause Of Justice Requires Adjudication On Merits As Far As Possible: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has allowed the condonation of a delay of 339 days for the suit filed in 2012 for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from obstructing the use of the passage in any manner by taking the bullock cart.

The bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati said that,

“Ordinarily, the litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice does require that as far as possible adjudication is done on merits. Though the suit is of the year 2012, still the same is pending and if the said application is not considered, the rights of the petitioner will be affected.”

The court was hearing the revision application against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, which had dismissed the application for condonation of delay in 2022 in the suit that was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2017.

The suit was filed in 2012 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the use of the passage ‘Rastha’ by taking the bullock cart, which has been existing from time immemorial.

The petitioner contended that, on that particular day he could not appear before the court due to ill health and his counsel also was held up in another court and hence, there was no representation.

The petitioner could not give instructions to his counsel to file a restoration application in time due to ill health, it was submitted. After recovering from ill health, the application was filed to condone the delay of 339 days in filing the restoration petition, the petitioner told.

However, the plea for condonation was rejected by the lower court.

The counsel for petitioner contended that the lower Court has dismissed the application with an observation that the petitioner has filed the condonation of delay application without specifying any reasonable cause.

The counsel further contended that non-representation on 24.07.2017 was not done willfully. The court ought to have given one more opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute their suit. However, the delay application was dismissed without considering the reason offered by the petitioner, and the court failed to see that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, it was submitted. 

The main contention of the counsel for the respondents was that since the petitioner failed to explain every day's delay in their affidavit while requesting condonation, the lower court rightly dismissed the application by providing cogent reasons. There was no valid reason raised by the petitioner's counsel before the court in the present revision application,  it was argued.

The court, after hearing both sides, opined that although the petitioner had not explained the reasons for the delay in their application, the court should have still considered it by imposing some costs.

Further, the court noted that litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant.

In light of the above, the condonation was allowed on a condition of payment of costs at Rs.1500 to the respondents within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Case Title: Pinjari Khasim v Chanda Saheb & ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 22

Counsel for Petitioner: Y Koteshwara Rao

Counsel for Respondent:B Sarvotham Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Order