Length of delay in filing case not criteria for dismissal: HC

In a significant ruling, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has said that if a petitioner gives sufficient reasons for condoning delay in filing a case, then the length of delay should not be a criteria for its dismissal.
"The court must consider only whether the petitioner has given sufficient reason for condoning the delay. That is the only criteria the court should see," Justice V M Velumani said, allowing a Civil Revision Petition, challenging a Subordinate Judge's order, refusing to entertain a petition condoning a delay of 1,476 days.
Petitioner Raja Rusbutheen said one N Periyasamy (respondent) had filed a suit for partition before the Subordinate Court at Periyakulam. During its pendency, there were talks of settlement following which the respondent agreed to withdraw the suit.

The petitioner believed him and did not contest the suit. However, the respondent not only proceeded with the suit but obtained a preliminary decree on February 26, 2008.
The petitioner came to know of it, met the respondent and enquired about it. Again he was promised that the application would be withdrawn for final decree.
Since this was not done, he filed an application to condone the 1,476-day delay in filing the application to set aside the preliminary decree.

The subordinate court held that the petitioner had not given any valid reason to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and dismissed his application. Rusbutheen then moved the High Court.

Justice Velumani observed that the length of delay is not the criteria, but the court must satisfy itself as to whether the petitioner had given sufficient reason for condoning the delay.
The judge said in the present case, the petitioner has specifically stated he had met the respondent and informed him he was the purchaser for valid consideration and the respondent had promised to withdraw the suit.
Pointing out that the respondent had not specifically denied this averment in his counter and arguments, he said the petitioner's statement there was talks of settlement and that the respondent promised to withdraw the suit was acceptable.

"Therefore, I hold that the petitioner has given sufficient reason to condone the delay," he said and set aside the subordinate judge's order and allowed the petition.