Rayirala Bala Swamy vs. Rayirala Deva Manikyam

Facts

The petitioners, Defendants No. 1 and 2 in OS No. 321 of 2014, are aggrieved by an order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar. This order dismissed their application (IA No. 566 of 2019) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone a delay of 1105 days in filing a petition to set aside an ex parte decree dated 26.06.2015. The present Civil Revision Petition (CRP) No. 621 of 2021 was filed before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the dismissal of the delay condonation application. The petitioners also sought a stay of further proceedings in EP No. 16 of 2017 in OS No. 321 of 2014.

Held

The High Court, in its considered view, found that the delay of 1105 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree could be condoned, but only on payment of costs. The Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order of the Junior Civil Judge. The condition imposed was that the petitioners must pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association within two weeks from the date of the order and file proof of payment. Failure to comply with this condition would automatically lead to the cancellation of the order. The ratio decidendi is that substantial delays can be condoned in the interest of justice, provided appropriate costs are paid to compensate the other party and uphold the procedural timelines.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1105 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree should be condoned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and if so, on what conditions? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners sought condonation of the significant delay in filing their application to set aside the ex parte decree. While the judgment does not explicitly detail their arguments for condonation, it implies they presented a case for it. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records that both sides were heard, indicating the respondent(s) likely opposed the condonation of delay. However, the specific arguments of the respondent(s) are not detailed in the provided text.