Supreme Court sets aside High Court decision, restores appeal emphasizing judicial balance and restraint.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to condone delays and restore the appeal, emphasizing the need for judicial balance and restraint. The Court criticized the High Court's handling of the case, noting the lack of plausible explanations for negligence. Consequently, the appeal was restored to its state as of 6th February 1998, resulting in the appeal standing abated and dismissed, with costs not awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Bringing legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent on record.
2. Setting aside the dismissal order dated 6.2.1998 and restoring the appeal.
3. Setting aside the abatement caused due to the death of the sole respondent.
4. Impleading a new petitioner in the appeal.
5. Condonation of delay in filing the petition seeking to set aside the dismissal order.

Detailed Analysis

1. Bringing Legal Representatives on Record:
The respondent sought to bring the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent (original plaintiff) on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC. The original plaintiff had died on 25th February 1990, and despite intimation, the appellants failed to bring the legal representatives on record. The High Court directed the government pleader to take steps, which were not complied with, leading to the appeal's abatement.

2. Setting Aside the Dismissal Order:
The High Court had dismissed the appeal on 6th February 1998 due to the appellants' failure to bring the legal representatives on record. The dismissal was challenged, and the respondents filed an application to set aside this dismissal. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had recorded the negligence of the respondents in pursuing the appeal but still condoned the delay without justification.

3. Setting Aside the Abatement:
The abatement caused due to the death of the sole respondent was sought to be set aside under Order 9 Rule 9 read with section 151 CPC. The High Court had initially observed severe lapses on the part of the appellants and their counsel but proceeded to condone the delay and set aside the abatement, which the Supreme Court found unjustifiable.

4. Impleading a New Petitioner:
A petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed to implead a new petitioner in the appeal. The High Court allowed this petition, but the Supreme Court found no justification for allowing the impleading of the new petitioner, considering the overall negligence and delay in the case.

5. Condonation of Delay:
The High Court condoned a delay of 883 days in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order and a delay of 3703 days to bring the legal representatives on record. The Supreme Court emphasized that the law of limitation must be enforced properly and cannot be rendered redundant by unjustified condonation of delays. The Court referred to its previous judgments, emphasizing that while courts adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays, such discretion must be exercised within reasonable bounds and justified by sufficient cause.

Supreme Court's Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's decision to condone the delay and set aside the abatement unjustifiable, given the clear negligence and lack of plausible explanation by the respondents. The judgment emphasized the need for judicial balance and restraint, criticizing the High Court's use of intemperate language and sarcastic remarks. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the situation to the state as it was on 6th February 1998, meaning the appeal stood abated and dismissed. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.

---