SOWBHAGYA Vs. JAYASHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 31/1/2023 passed in R.A.No.105/2021 on I.A.No.1 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru wherein the Trial Court dismissed the very appeal filed by the revision petitioner No.4 since there was a delay of 2 years 11 months days 21 days in filing the regular appeal and hence, I.A.No.1 filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and consequently, the regular appeal is also got dismissed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application and ought to have condoned the delay and mechanically dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in filling the same. The counsel also would submits that the sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if there is negligence, inaction or lack of bonafide on the part of the party. The petitioners have filed their affidavit and also lead their evidence to the effect that there was no occasion for them to disbelieve the words of the advocate to whom they have entrusted the work of preparing and filing the appeal. It is also contended that in the present case, admittedly, there was a number of cases in respect of similar matters between the same parties. In few of them, the Trial Court, had rejected the plaint as in the above case, challenging which, the regular appeals were filed by the petitioners. In few other matters, the suits were pending before the Trial Court. In such a situation, by no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that there was either negligence or inaction or lack of bonafide on the part of the petitioners herein in causing deliberate delay to file an appeal before the Court. Hence, the Trial Court ought not to have not rejected the same on the ground of delay. Hence, it requires interference.