Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 5, Limitation Act — Condonation of delay — False plea of non-service — Suppression of material facts
Held, where defendants had entered appearance through counsel, filed vakalat, were granted statutory time to file written statement, and were set ex parte for non-appearance, a plea in appeal affidavit that no summons were served and that the defendants had no knowledge of the suit proceedings is false and contrary to record and does not constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay.
(Paras 8–11)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Appeal barred by limitation — Delay of 950 days — Dismissal
Held, in the absence of sufficient cause and in view of incorrect and misleading averments made in the affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay, the application for condonation of delay of 950 days and the appeal itself are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Paras 11–12)
Practice and Procedure — Affidavit — Duty of candour — Suppression of material facts
Held, a litigant approaching the Court is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all material facts; suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to mislead the Court amounts to abuse of process and disentitles such party to any discretionary relief.
(Paras 5–7, 9)
Judicial Process — Abuse of process — Filing false affidavit — Consequences
Held, filing an affidavit containing incorrect facts, suppressing material circumstances, and setting up a false plea of non-service of summons constitutes abuse of the process of Court, warranting imposition of exemplary costs.
(Paras 5–10)
Costs — Exemplary costs — Imposition
Held, in view of abuse of process and attempt to mislead the Court, costs of ₹50,000/- were imposed on the appellants, payable to the Andhra Pradesh State High Court Legal Services Committee.
(Paras 10, 16)
Advocates — Duty of care — Verification of instructions
Observed, though no action was taken against counsel, an advocate is expected to exercise due care, diligence, and verification of facts, particularly where the trial court record itself reflects service of summons and appearance of defendants.
(Paras 11–13)
II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS
The respondent filed O.S.No.11 of 2018 for recovery of money, which was decreed ex parte on 11.04.2022.
The appellants/defendants filed A.S.No.223 of 2025 with a delay of 950 days, accompanied by I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay.
In the affidavit supporting condonation, the appellants pleaded that:
no summons were served,
they had no knowledge of the suit,
they came to know of the decree only through execution proceedings in Kerala.
The High Court called for a factual report from the trial court regarding service of summons.
The report of the V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram revealed that:
summons were issued,
vakalat was filed by advocates on behalf of defendants,
statutory time was granted for filing written statement,
defendants failed to file written statement and were set ex parte on 16.04.2019.
The Court found that the affidavit filed in support of condonation contained incorrect statements and suppressed material facts.
Even after opportunity, the explanation offered by the appellants through a subsequent affidavit was found unsatisfactory and an afterthought.
III. ANALYSIS OF LAW
The Court reaffirmed that condonation of delay is a discretionary relief, dependent on bona fides and sufficiency of cause.
A plea of non-service of summons, when directly contradicted by the trial court record showing appearance and vakalat, is factually false and legally untenable.
Relying on authoritative pronouncements, the Court reiterated that:
litigants must approach the Court with clean hands,
suppression of material facts pollutes the stream of justice,
courts have not only the power but the duty to deny relief in such cases.
The Court further emphasised the ethical standards expected of advocates, observing that while the counsel was not proceeded against, verification of facts was expected in light of the trial court record.
In order to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings and deter abuse, the Court imposed exemplary costs.
IV. RATIO DECIDENDI
A plea of non-service of summons cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay when the record shows appearance through counsel, filing of vakalat, grant of time to file written statement, and setting of defendants ex parte for non-appearance.
Suppression of material facts and filing of a false affidavit with intent to mislead the Court amounts to abuse of the process of Court and disentitles the litigant to discretionary relief.
Inordinate delay unsupported by bona fide explanation must result in rejection of condonation application and dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation.
Courts are justified in imposing exemplary costs where judicial process is abused through misstatements and suppression of facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment