A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

In the case Omdeo Baliram Musale & Ors. v. Prakash Ramchandra Mamidwar & Ors., the Supreme Court deliberated upon a prolonged procedural journey involving a suit for declaration regarding a property transaction alleged to be unauthorized. The suit, initially filed in 1982, sought to challenge a sale by the petitioners’ father, alleging it infringed upon joint family property rights. Dismissed multiple times due to procedural defaults, the case resurfaced through various restoration applications and appeals. This continuous cycle of dismissals, appeals, and restoration pleas culminated in the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP), acknowledging the infructuous nature of the proceedings after four decades of litigation stagnancy. The Court emphasized the need for systemic efficiency in addressing and resolving simpler civil disputes to prevent undue procedural delay.

Keywords: Suit for declaration, Revision petition, Restoration application, Condonation of delay, Procedural default.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Omdeo Baliram Musale & Ors. v. Prakash Ramchandra Mamidwar & Ors.
ii) Case Number: Special Leave Petition No. 11258 of 2015
iii) Judgment Date: 24 January 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar
vi) Author: Supreme Court of India
vii) Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1219 : 2024 INSC 93
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Order IX Rules 2, 4, and 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None
x) Case is Related to: Civil Law, Property Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute in this case originated from a declaration suit filed in 1982 by Omdeo Baliram Musale and others. They contested the sale of joint family property by their father, which they claimed was unauthorized. Despite numerous attempts to restore the suit after its initial dismissal, the legal proceedings repeatedly encountered setbacks due to procedural missteps and protracted delays. The protracted litigation saw multiple rounds of restoration applications and condonation pleas due to continuous lapses, mainly attributed to the parties’ inability to serve the necessary legal notices. The High Court, reflecting on the repetitive nature of restoration attempts, dismissed the application, noting procedural inadequacies.

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP), challenging the High Court’s dismissal. However, the Supreme Court, observing the drawn-out procedural history and the current status of the property in question, held that the litigation had become infructuous, primarily due to the extensive passage of time.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Initial Filing and Purpose: The petitioners filed a declaration suit in 1982 to contest the unauthorized sale of their ancestral property by their father to third parties via a sale deed executed in 1980.

2. Dismissal for Default: The initial suit faced dismissal as the petitioners failed to pay the requisite process fee necessary for issuing notices to the legal representatives of one of the defendants.

3. Restoration Application and Technicality: In 1993, the petitioners applied for the suit’s restoration, which was rejected after seven years in 2000 due to a technicality. The trial court dismissed it on the basis that the application was filed under the wrong provision of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. Subsequent Appeals and Revision Petition: Following the trial court’s dismissal, the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed in 2003. Subsequently, a revision petition was filed, and while it was under consideration, the petitioners encountered further procedural complications, especially concerning the service of notice to one of the respondents, respondent no. 8.

5. Peremptory Order and Dismissal of Revision Petition: Due to delays in rectifying the service issue, the High Court issued a peremptory order in 2005, mandating compliance within two weeks. However, non-compliance led to the dismissal of the revision petition.

6. Renewed Restoration Attempts: Over the following years, the petitioners filed multiple restoration applications, including one in 2011 through the son of one of the original petitioners. However, procedural issues again led to rejection by the High Court.

7. High Court’s Final Order: In 2014, the High Court dismissed the latest restoration and delay condonation applications, prompting the petitioners to seek relief from the Supreme Court via an SLP.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application for restoration of the revision petition, especially considering the delay condonation request.

ii. Whether the procedural delays and dismissals effectively rendered the case infructuous, undermining the substantive claim.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Restoration Due to Procedural Errors: The petitioners contended that procedural oversights by counsel led to the initial dismissal and subsequent restoration challenges. They argued for leniency in rectifying these technical errors to allow the suit to proceed on its merits.

ii. Impact on Substantive Rights: They argued that repeated dismissals on procedural grounds prevented the adjudication of their substantive claim regarding the unauthorized sale of ancestral property, a matter they deemed critical to joint family rights.

iii. Delay Condonation Justification: The petitioners argued that the delay was not intentional but rather a result of counsel changes, family transitions, and administrative hurdles, including difficulties in serving certain respondents.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Infructuous Nature of Proceedings: The respondents emphasized that the prolonged delays and multiple dismissals demonstrated the frivolity of the petitioners’ claims, particularly given that the suit’s subject matter had remained stagnant for decades.

ii. Procedural Negligence: They contended that the petitioners consistently failed to observe court procedures, indicating a lack of genuine interest in diligently pursuing the case, thereby justifying the High Court’s rejection of restoration.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Order IX Rule 2 of CPC: This provision addresses dismissal of suits due to failure in serving defendants due to plaintiffs’ fault.

ii. Order IX Rule 4 of CPC: It provides the remedy of applying for restoration of a suit dismissed under Rule 2, under certain circumstances.

iii. Order IX Rule 9 of CPC: This rule allows for an application for the restoration of suits dismissed in default but does not apply to cases dismissed under Rule 2.

I) JUDGMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that the prolonged history of procedural defaults, repeated dismissals, and inability to serve notices rendered the case infructuous. The Court emphasized the need for judicial processes to uphold efficiency and pointed out that excessively delayed cases erode the core purpose of judicial intervention in civil matters. The Court dismissed the SLP, underscoring that a case that had persisted unresolved since 1982 could no longer be practically or effectively adjudicated.

b. OBITER DICTA (IF ANY)

The Court highlighted the inefficiency within the judicial process, urging reforms to minimize procedural delays, which undermine justice. The judges opined that while litigants should receive fair trials, chronic delays obstructing simple reliefs signal a systemic issue.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• Lalmani Devi v. Mukesh Kumar, addressing procedural dismissals under CPC.
• S.S. Bains v. State of Punjab, on rights in property disputes and procedural diligence.

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Order IX Rules 2, 4, and 9 of CPC: Addressing dismissals and restoration procedures in civil litigation.