Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

1. In the case at hand, a Civil Suit bearing No.53 of 2011 had been filed by present respondents No.1 to 3. In the suit so filed, sale deed executed by predecessor-in-interest of proforma respondents No.7 in favour of present petitioner and proforma respondent No.8, had been assailed. Petitioner No.1 along with predecessor-in-interest of proforma respondent No.7 and proforma respondent No.8 had filed a counter claim bearing No.79 of 2012, seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against present respondents No.1 to 3.

2. The suit filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 was dismissed by the trial Court and the counter claim filed by the present petitioner and predecessor-in-interest of proforma respondent No.7 along with proforma respondent No.8 was decreed. The aforesaid two were decided by a common judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015.

3. Aggrieved by the same, respondents No.1 to 3 had preferred one appeal. Since two appeals were to be preferred against the common judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015, therefore on realizing the same, a fresh copy of judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015 was applied for. The same was supplied to respondents No.1 to 3 on 16.02.2021, within one month of the same (after deducting the period spent in obtaining copy and the expiry of the lockdown period), the second appeal was preferred. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal had been preferred. The delay in filing the second appeal was condoned vide impugned order dated 06.05.2022.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been preferred.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

6. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the provision of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC. Attention had been invited to the same to show that a counter claim is to be treated as a plaint and that the same shall have the effect of a cross suit. Other than the aforesaid, attention has been invited to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 CPC specifically the proviso thereto.

7. Other than the aforesaid, attention of this Court has been invited to 2013 (12) SCC 649, titled Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, specifically para 21.8 thereto, to show that while dealing with a case of inordinate delay not only would the doctrine of prejudice be attracted but a case of inordinate delay would also require a strict approach in dealing with the same.

8. Besides the aforesaid, attention has been invited to 2014 (XI) SCC 351, titled Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. The same has been referred qua general principles to be dealt with while considering an application for condonation of delay.

9. Other than the aforesaid, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon SLP(C) Nos.935-936 of 2021, titled Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash decided on 21.04.2024. Attention has been drawn to the same to buttress his submission that carelessness or negligence on the part of lawyer cannot be a ground for condoning delay and inordinate delay.

10. In the case at hand, this Court is not hearing an application for condonation of delay but in a revision is examining a discretionary order of the trial Court granting the prayer for condonation of delay. In the case of the former, whether to condone or not would be the only question whereas in the latter, whether there has been proper exercise of discretion in favour of grant of the prayer for condonation would be the question. Law is fairly well-settled that a Revisional Court should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below.

11. Insofar as the reference to Order 8 Rule 6A CPC and the proviso of Order 41 Rule 1 CPC are concerned, the same qua status of a counter claim and a form of appeal to be preferred from an original decree are clear. However, when a suit and a counter claim are decided by a common judgment, whether one appeal would suffice or two are required to be filed is a question, which requires consideration of a trained legal mind. Aggrieved by a common judgment, disposing of a suit and a counter claim, the best that can be expected of a prudent/reasonable litigant is that he approaches a lawyer for guiding him further qua redressal of his grievances within the parameters of the legal system.

12. In the case at hand, no lack of bona fides can be imputed to respondents No.1 to 3 in approaching a lawyer for filing an appeal against the common judgment deciding the suit and the counter claim. For the fact that one appeal was filed, in the case at hand, against the common judgment deciding the suit and the counter claim, the litigant/respondents No.1 to 3 cannot be blamed. They acted bona fidely as per the advice of the counsel.

13. Condonation of delay is a discretionary power available to the courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. An “explanation” helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. (See 2023 10 SCC 531, titled Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.)

14. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash, is clearly distinguishable on facts. Therein in moving the application for condonation of delay, the party had not approached the Court with clean hands. It had suppressed the material facts qua knowledge of the proceedings and had cast serious allegations on the previous counsel, while seeking condonation of delay. In the case at hand, respondents No.1 to 3 being diligent, litigants cannot be made to suffer for the act of the Advocate for not appropriately advising them with respect to filing two appeals.

15. In the case at hand, insofar as condonation of delay by the trial Court is concerned, the exercise of discretion in favor of respondents No.1 to 3 cannot be faulted on the general principles pertaining to condonation of delay to which reference has been made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner qua which there can be no Qualm.

16. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits, so also the pending application(s), if any.

17. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 26th May, 2025