Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 27 CS SCJ 668-24
RAVI KANT MANGA Vs. USHA KUMARI
14.05.2025
Present: Ms. Latika Goel with Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Learned
Counsel for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Ansh Malhotra, Learned Counsel for the
Defendant.
Arguments were already heard on behalf of Plaintiff
on the applications by Defendant seeking condonation of delay in
filing WS and setting aside of order dated 26.11.2024.
Arguments heard on the applications on behalf of
Defendant today.
Plaintiff relies on H. Guruswamy & Ors. vs. A.
Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRS, 2025 INSC 53, to argue
that the length of delay is relevant and must be considered by the
Court while condoning delay and that the inaction of the
Defendant is to be seen to show that sufficient cause has been
made out, in absence whereof the merits of the matter should not
be looked into.
Plaintiff opposes the application on the ground that
the cause shown is not sufficient and so the length of delay must
be taken into consideration.
As per the application and also as argued by the
Defendant, a friend was asked to engage an Advocate and the
concerned Advocate failed to appear before the Court only on
one date of hearing. As soon as the Defendant found out the
adverse order, the present application was moved.
Law regarding condonation of delay in filing WS is
Contd...
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
well settled. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through its
judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji,
AIR 1987 SC 1353 has observed:
"Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious
matter being thrown out at the very threshold and
cause of justice being defeated. As against this when
delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that
a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the
parties."
Further, it held that it must be grasped that judiciary
is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on
technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice
and is expected to do so.
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the same in
Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 and observed:
"Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to
be given for the circumstances which are exceptional,
occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the
defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if
the time was not extended."
The argument of the Defendant is confirmed by the
record and in view of law discussed above, the cause shown for
the delay seems sufficient and this is not a case where the
application must be dismissed. Equities can be balanced by
imposing costs.
Considering the facts stated in the applications and
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the
Application by Defendant under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for
setting aside of order dated 26.11.2024 as well as the
Contd...
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
application seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS is
allowed and WS is taken on record, subject to payment of
cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Plaintiff.
Replication, if any, be filed on or before next date of
hearing.
Parties are directed to file their respective
affidavits of admission/denial and proposed issues, if any.
List for framing of issues on 12.08.2025.
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi District, Delhi
-- 3 of 3 --