TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the District Court shown insensitiveness while dismissing the application for condonation of delay is the prime concern of this Court in this appeal. Further this Court is also called upon to consider the question whether the principles governing the construction of sufficient cause while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has to be applied "conscientiously" while considering a litigation touching the property rights of litigants. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellants preferred IA No.1 of 2023 in AS No.69 of 2023 for condonation of the delay of 444 days in filing the appeal. The appellants are the 2nd and 3rd defendants, respectively, in a su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first appeal without considering the merits of the appeal by refusing to evaluate Ext.B1 settlement deed which is clouded with suspicious and surreptitious circumstances circumventing its execution and supervening factors which invalidate its authenticity and sanctity without appreciating the evidence.? 2. Whether the First appellate Court was correct in not following the principles and precedents of Sec 5 of the Limitation Act while dismissing the petition to condone delay filed by the appellants herein without going into the merits of the case? 3. Whether the Courts below were correct in accepting Ext B1 settlement deed by ignoring the contentions of the first respondent in his written statement of him owning the entire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 5 should be applied when it involves property law? 7. This question assumes significance, especially in civil litigation, since for multiple reasons the party may be unable to take actions in proper time. But, there is a school of thought that once an indefeasible right has vested on the opposite side, then the court will be slow to condone the delay. Can it be said that an indefeasible right has accrued on the respondents herein merely by virtue of passing of the preliminary decree?. The answer to the said question lies obviously in understanding the fact that before passing of the final decree, any number of preliminary decree can be passed since, the law permits so. Reference can be made to Rule 230 of Kerala Civil Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eral construction so as to advance sustainable justice . Para 15 and 16 of the decision reads as under. "15.It is a fairly well-settled law that "sufficient cause" should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bona fides could be imputable to the appellant. After referring to various judgments, in B. Madhuri, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 696, para 6) "6. The expression "sufficient cause" used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." 12. In B.Madhuri Goud Vs B.Damodhar Reddy [(2012) 12 SCC 693], the Supreme Court summarised succinctly the principles governing the condonation of delay as follows : "6. The expression "sufficient cause" used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other RSA No.233 of 2025 10 2025:KER:36609 statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications for condonation of delay but over the years courts have repeatedly obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mands that one opportunity be granted to the appellants to contest the supplementary preliminary decree on merits. Therefore, in the light of exposition of law enunciated by the Supreme Court, this Court while answering the questions of law raised in the appeal is inclined to set aside the order in IA No.1 of 2023 as well as the final judgment in AS No.69 of 2023 by imposing a cost of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to each respondent in the appeal, on the appellants, to be paid through the counsel for the respondents. The said costs shall be paid within a period of three weeks from today. On payment of such cost, the appeal, AS No.69 of 2023, will stand restored to the files of the District Court, Ernakulam. The appell....