Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 93
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.11258/2015
OMDEO BALIRAM MUSALE & ORS. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
PRAKASH RAMCHANDRA MAMIDWAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. This Special Leave Petition is against the decision of the
1
High Court in dismissing an application for restoration of a Civil
Revision Application and the accompanying application for
condonation of delay in sheer exasperation. The facts are as
follows:
2. A simple prayer was made by the petitioners in a suit for
declaration that the property belonging to the joint family, but
their father wrongly sold it to third parties through a sale deed
in the year 1980.
3. The suit came to be dismissed for default for not paying the
process fee for service of notice on the LRs. of defendant no.2.
The petitioners therefore filed an application for restoration in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2024.02.08
16:03:40 IST
Reason:
1993.
1 In CA No. 1109/2013 in MCA No. 12275/2013 in CRA No. 284/2003 dated 05.11.2014.
1
4. This application for restoration was decided after seven years
and the Trial Court on 04.02.2000 dismissed the application on the
ground that it was filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC whereas
it ought to have been filed under Order IX Rule 4 of the CPC as the
suit was originally dismissed under Order IX, Rule 2 of the CPC.
The petitioner filed an appeal against this order.
5. After three years, the appeal came to be dismissed on
25.06.2003. The petitioner then filed a revision petition in which
the High Court issued notice.
6. While the revision was pending before the High Court, the
petitioner was unable to serve respondent no.8 for a long time due
to some issue about change in the names. Having waited for long,
High Court passed a peremptory order on 01.12.2005 that if the
objections were not removed within a period of two weeks, the
revision petition would stand dismissed without reference to the
Court.
7. On 12.12.2005, the petitioner’s advocate is said to have
prepared an application for change of name of respondent no.8 and a
copy was also served on the respondent’s advocate but in the
meanwhile the peremptory order came into operation and the revision
petition came to be dismissed on 15.12.2005.
8. Despite the dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioner
filed the application for change in name of respondent no.8 on
21.12.2005.
2
9. The sad story continues. In 2011, i.e. after six years, an
M.A. for restoration was filed by the petitioner through his son.
The son’s affidavit was taken on record. However, the High Court by
order dated 03.07.2013 dismissed the M.A. only on the ground that
it was not moved by the original party to the revision petition.
10. In view of the above referred order, another application was
filed in 2013 by the petitioner himself for restoration of the
revision petition and condonation of delay. The High Court by the
order dated 05.11.2014, impugned herein, dismissed the application
for restoration.
11. The story does not stop here. The petitioner then filed a
Special Leave Petition against the above-said impugned order and
notice was issued by this Court on 06.04.2015.
12. From 2015, the matter has been pending before this Court.
Proceedings in the case indicate that the SLP was listed several
times between 2015 and 2024 but could not be heard as notice on
some respondents was not complete.
13. The above referred facts indicate that the suit that was filed
in 1982 never took off as even summons were not issued. It might
not be surprising for lawyers, judges and those who are acquainted
with civil court proceedings. The real danger is when we accept
this position and continue with it as part of a systematic problem.
Until and unless we believe that this situation is unacceptable and
act accordingly, the power, authority and jurisdiction of Courts to
address simple reliefs of citizens will be consumed and destroyed
by passage of time. This is not acceptable at all.
3
14. There must be a solution, idea and resolve to rectify this
situation and ensure that simple, quick and easy remedies are
available to correct an illegality for a rightful restitution. We
have referred to all this only to take note of what has happened
and take steps to rectify it in the time to come.
15. Coming back to this case, we have noticed that the suit that
was filed in the year 1982 relates to an alleged unauthorized sale
by father more than four decades back. The suit has virtually
become infructuous for more than one reason. The Special Leave
Petition is dismissed.
16. Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…….………………………………………………………………….J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
New Delhi
JANUARY 24, 2024
4