advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 115 – Revisional jurisdiction – Scope of interference – Order refusing condonation of delay – Held, absence of satisfactory explanation disentitles interference – Para 3

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of delay – Requirement of sufficient cause – Mere assertion regarding accident of counsel without substantiating material – Not sufficient – Para 2, 3

Remand – Liberty to file fresh application – Court declining interference yet granting liberty to file fresh application with sufficient material – Permissible in interests of justice – Para 4

JUDGMENT

1. Background (Para 1)

The Civil Revision Petition challenges the order dated 28.04.2025 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.36 of 2018 by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tanuku, whereby the interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed.

2. Submissions (Para 2)

The petitioner contended:

Due to an accident, counsel for the petitioner could not file the application for condonation of delay within the stipulated time.
The Court below ought to have considered the explanation furnished.
The dismissal of the application was erroneous.

3. Findings of the High Court (Para 3)

Upon perusal of the record, the High Court held:

There was no satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The Court below was justified in dismissing the application.
No ground for revisional interference was made out.

4. Operative Directions (Para 4)

Though declining interference, the Court:

Remanded the matter.
Granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with sufficient material.
Directed the Court below to consider such application, if filed, in accordance with law.
Disposed of the CRP without costs.
Closed pending miscellaneous applications.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

A. Legal Framework – Section 5 of the Limitation Act

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:

Delay may be condoned upon showing “sufficient cause.”
The burden lies on the applicant.
Explanation must be bona fide, reasonable, and supported by material particulars.

A mere assertion—without documentary substantiation—does not meet the threshold.

In the present case:

The plea of “accident of counsel” was raised.
However, the Court found absence of satisfactory explanation.
No material substantiating the cause appears to have been placed.

Thus, the Trial Court’s refusal was legally sustainable.

B. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and corrective:

Interference arises only where:

Jurisdictional error exists,
Material irregularity is apparent, or
Order is perverse or illegal.

Here:

The Trial Court exercised discretion under Section 5.
No perversity or illegality was demonstrated.
Hence, the High Court declined interference.

C. Equitable Balancing by the High Court

Notably, while affirming the dismissal:

The High Court adopted a balanced approach.
It permitted filing of a fresh application with sufficient material.

This indicates:

Procedural justice was preserved.
Substantive rights were not foreclosed absolutely.

The order therefore combines:

Judicial restraint (non-interference), and
Procedural fairness (grant of liberty).

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where an application for condonation of delay is dismissed for want of satisfactory explanation, and no material irregularity or jurisdictional error is shown, the High Court in revisional jurisdiction will not interfere. However, in appropriate cases, liberty may be granted to file a fresh application supported by sufficient material.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

Tuesday, February 17, 2026