GOKULANANDA MOHANTY Vs. RANIBALA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instances are not rare when procedural restraints are the substantial controversies and create a sense of helplessness and foster frustration among the innocent litigants. Delay being not condoned in prefering a Title Appeal at the instance of the defendants against the judgment and decree whereby right, title and interest of the valuable properties of the parties were determined and civil revision being carried from the said order of rejection and having met the same fate, the petitioner, a septuagenarian, has approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The factual scenario as emerges as that the opp. party Nos. 1 to 4 as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 208/87 in the Court of learned Munsif, Jagatsinghpur for declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the suit land with the further declaration that the sale deed, Ext. A, is invalid and inoperative with a further alternative prayer for a decree of partition. The suit was contested by the defendants and eventually the learned Munsiff decreed the suit in part directing the defendants 2 to 4 therein to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of eastern half of the suit land which they had purchased under Ext. A. The said judgment was pronounced on 11.5.1990 and the present petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment on 27.6.1990 and the certified copy of the judgment was made available on 16.7.1990. Decree was signed on 20th August, 1990. After obtaining the certified copy of the decree the petitioner preferred Title Appeal No. 17/90 before the Subordinate Judge (present designated as Civil Judge, Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur. As there was delay in filing the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condonation of the same. Ground of illness was advanced and plea of non-negligence was high-lighted. The application for condonation of delay was resisted by the plaintiff-respondents therein. The Appellate Court was of the view that the plea of illness was not genuine as there were two medical certificates. He entertained doubts with regard to the stand of the appellants therein as far as it related to appellant No. 1 exclusively being in charge of the litigation. Assigning these reasons the Appellate Court came to hold that the delay in filing the appeal was not to be condoned. The said application being rejected the present petitioner alongwith other appellants preferred Civil Revision No. 268/92 in the Court of 1st Addl. District Judge, Cuttack. The Revisional Court was of the view that non-reliance on the medical certificates by the Appellate Court was justified and there was no perversity in any of the findings recorded by the Appellate Court. Being of such view he rejected the revision of the revisionist.

(3.) Mr. B. Routray, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that there are substantial grounds for condonation of delay and the Courts below have adopted a very restricted approach. It is his submission that there were materials on record to come to a definite conclusion that the present petitioner was looking after the case and he was taken ill and he being an old man of 70 years then, the plea should have been accepted and should not have been weighed with parameters of technical rigorism. Lastly he has contended that property involved in the suit is quite valuable and their right should not be extinguished at the threshold of the appeal and they should be allowed the entry to canvass their contentions with regard to merits in the appeal, as law requires a liberal view to be taken in the matter of limitation and parties are to be permitted to agitate their grievances in the sphere of merits.