Non-receipt of Court-directed notice constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in seeking restoration.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the Condonation of Delay applications concerning the restoration of the LR and amendment applications

The court held

The Court held that the 127-day delay was condonable as the petitioners were not aware of the hearing date due to the failure of service of notice

It also directed

The Court allowed all four Civil Revision Petitions, set aside the impugned orders dated 30.08.2017, and directed the Trial Court to restore the applications and dispose of the suit on a priority basis, exploring mediation or ADR options

01Facts

In 2006, six siblings filed a declaratory suit for partition and injunction regarding immovable properties against their brother (D1), his son (D2), and grandson (D3)

p. 12

D1 died during the pendency of the suit in March 2007

p. 13

Two plaintiffs (revision petitioners) filed applications to bring D1’s legal representatives (LRs) on record and to amend said applications. The suit was subsequently transferred from the original Trial Court to the Additional District Judge (FTC), Manipur East

p. 13

On 26.03.2010, the Trial Court noted the absence of the plaintiffs and directed notice to be issued to them for a hearing on 26.04.2010 due to an alteration in the appearance date

p. 14, 16

The plaintiffs alleged they never received this notice. Consequently, the LR and amendment applications were dismissed for default on 18.06.2011

p. 14

The petitioners filed for restoration and Condonation of Delay (CoD) on 23.11.2011, asserting they only gained knowledge of the dismissal on 21.11.2011

p. 14

The Trial Court dismissed the CoD applications on 30.08.2017, citing the plaintiffs' prior absence and failure to specify the exact number of days of delay

pp. 15-16

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the Condonation of Delay applications concerning the restoration of the LR and amendment applications

p. 15

ii.2. Whether the lack of notice regarding the altered hearing date constituted "sufficient cause" for the delay under the Limitation Act

p. 21

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the condonation of delay if the applicant establishes "sufficient cause"

p. 21

The "dominus litis" concept is restricted in partition suits, and siblings may "sink or sail" together regardless of who filed the specific application

pp. 18-19

Evolving judicial trend established by the Supreme Court, which rejects a "wooden approach" requiring an explanation for every single day's delay, favoring a more pragmatic view toward substantial justice

p. 24

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the Trial Court overlooked its own order dated 26.03.2010, which specifically directed that notice be issued to the plaintiffs due to a correction in the appearance date

p. 16

Since there was no evidence that the plaintiffs actually received this notice, they could not be faulted for their absence on the subsequent hearing dates

p. 21

The Court calculated the actual delay as 127 days from the date of the default dismissal

p. 20

In a partition suit involving close blood relatives, where the applications (bringing undisputed LRs on record) were innocuous and imperative for the suit's progression, a narrow technical view of the delay was inappropriate

p. 21, 23

While acknowledging that CoD applications should ideally specify the exact number of days, the Court held that the peculiar facts—including the 20-year pendency of the suit and the blood relationship of the parties—warranted a "mild exception" to promote a trial on merits

p. 20, 23