A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the appellant’s attempt to condone a delay of nearly 14 years in filing an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal pertains to an ex-parte order dated September 6, 2006, issued by the trial court. The appellant alleged lack of proper notice and negligence by his previous counsel as reasons for the delay. However, the courts consistently found the appellant grossly negligent, with no sufficient cause to explain the inordinate delay. The discretionary power of the judiciary to condone delays under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was discussed extensively. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing that gross negligence and lack of bona fide action do not merit condonation of delays.

Keywords: Sufficient cause, Condonation of delay, Gross negligence, Order IX Rule 7, Discretionary power.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) v. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 4785 of 2024.

iii) Judgement Date:
April 8, 2024.

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum:
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

vi) Author:
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

vii) Citation:
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 616; 2024 INSC 281.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Order IX Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None.

x) Case is Related to Law Subjects:
Civil Procedure, Law of Limitation.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute originated in 2006 with the filing of a civil suit involving a property in Barabanki district, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant became an ex-parte party to the proceedings due to his failure to file a written statement despite notice. After 14 years, the appellant sought to have the ex-parte order set aside, claiming negligence by his former counsel and delayed knowledge of the proceedings. The trial court, revisional court, and High Court of Allahabad dismissed the appellant’s applications for lack of sufficient cause. The Supreme Court had to evaluate whether this delay merited condonation under the principles established in judicial precedents.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Property Transactions and Initial Suit:
   The property in question was sold by Kalawati (Respondent 4) to Mansa Ram (Respondent 5) in March 2006 and subsequently to the appellant in April 2006. Respondents 1–3 challenged the sale, claiming ownership under a will executed in their favor.

2. Proceedings in Trial Court:
   In April 2006, Respondents 1–3 initiated a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. Despite proper service of notice, the appellant failed to file his written statement, leading the trial court to proceed ex-parte on September 6, 2006.

3. Subsequent Applications by Appellant:

   • The appellant filed an application under Order IX, Rule 7 in September 2017, which he did not pursue.
   • Another application was filed in November 2020 with similar claims but was dismissed for lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay.

4. Revisional and High Court Decisions:

   • The revisional court upheld the trial court’s order, finding no error or merit in the appellant’s arguments.
   • The High Court reiterated the appellant’s gross negligence and lack of bona fides, dismissing his petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the delay of 14 years in filing an application under Order IX, Rule 7, CPC could be condoned.
2. Whether the appellant demonstrated sufficient cause as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that he was unaware of the trial court’s order due to improper communication from his previous counsel.
2. He claimed his former counsel was negligent and failed to act on his behalf during the proceedings.
3. The appellant requested leniency under the principle of “liberal interpretation” for the term “sufficient cause.”

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondents asserted that the appellant was duly served with notices and failed to act despite being aware of the proceedings.
2. They highlighted the inconsistencies and contradictions in the appellant’s explanation for the delay.
3. They argued that condoning such inordinate delay would undermine judicial discipline and fairness.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

1. The term “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be liberally construed to ensure justice but not to protect negligence.
2. Gross negligence, such as the appellant’s 14-year delay, cannot be condoned without compelling justification.

b. Obiter Dicta:

• Judicial discretion for condonation must strike a balance between leniency and procedural discipline.

c. Guidelines (From Precedents):

1. Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi (2021): Courts should be justice-oriented but not reward gross negligence.
2. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997): Gross negligence precludes condonation.
3. Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013): Liberal interpretation applies only when bona fides are evident.
4. Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013): Courts must ensure substantial justice but maintain discipline.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The case reinforces the judiciary’s stance against condoning delays arising from gross negligence and lack of diligence. It balances judicial discretion with procedural discipline, emphasizing fairness for both parties.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors., (2021) 18 SCC 384.
2. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556.
3. Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81.
4. Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649.

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Order IX, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963.