Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition challenging the trial court’s order admitting a miscellaneous case for restoration of a partition suit previously dismissed for default. The Court upheld the Sub Judge’s order dated 31.07.2019, finding no merit to interfere. It held that the petitioner’s five-year delay in approaching the High Court, with no sufficient explanation for periods outside COVID-19 disruptions, rendered the petition unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had already appeared in the restoration proceedings since 2017 and filed a rejoinder, yet had not questioned the initiation of those proceedings at the appropriate time.
Facts
The petitioner had originally filed a partition suit seeking division of certain immovable properties. This suit, registered as Partition Suit No. 145/2005, was dismissed for default on 06.09.2017 by the Sub Judge-1, Nawada. Subsequently, the defendants (respondents in the present petition) filed Miscellaneous Case No. 77/2017 seeking restoration of the dismissed suit. The petitioner alleged that the defendants had fraudulently filed a compromise petition before the trial court in the partition suit.
On 31.07.2019, the trial court admitted the miscellaneous case for consideration. The petitioner approached the High Court only in 2024, challenging this order.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the 2019 order admitting the restoration application was maintainable after a delay of nearly five years.
- Whether the COVID-19 pandemic could justify the delay in filing the present petition.
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting the miscellaneous case despite the petitioner’s objections.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the trial court should not have admitted the restoration application because she, being the plaintiff in the original suit, had not taken any steps for restoration after the dismissal for default. It was argued that the compromise petition filed by the defendants was fraudulent and that the trial court failed to consider these allegations. The petitioner further submitted that the delay in approaching the High Court was due to the intervening COVID-19 period, which hindered her ability to file the petition earlier.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that the petitioner had actively participated in the restoration proceedings by filing a rejoinder on 07.10.2017 and never challenged the initiation of the miscellaneous case at that stage. They contended that the challenge was an attempt to avoid proceedings already pending before the trial court for several years. They further maintained that the delay was inexcusable as there was no explanation for the period before March 2020 or after February 2022 when normal functioning of courts resumed.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of interference in restoration proceedings and the principles governing delay condonation. While the COVID-19 pandemic did result in extension of limitation periods as per Supreme Court orders, the Court noted that such benefit applied only to periods impacted by the pandemic. Delays preceding March 2020 or after February 2022 must be independently justified. The Court also reiterated that mere participation in proceedings without timely objection weakens later challenges to their maintainability.
Precedent Analysis
Although no specific judgments were expressly cited in the text, the Court’s reasoning aligns with principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987) on liberal condonation of delay when justified, and in State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) on the necessity of explaining every day’s delay. The COVID-19 limitation extension principles flow from In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2020–2022), which the Court implicitly referenced when restricting its applicability to the pandemic period only.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- The petitioner waited for five years to challenge the 2019 order.
- COVID-19 began in March 2020 and ended in February 2022 for limitation purposes, leaving significant unexplained periods before and after.
- The petitioner had already contested the miscellaneous case by filing a rejoinder in 2017 and never raised jurisdictional objections earlier.
- The current petition was essentially an attempt to derail pending restoration proceedings without substantive justification.
Given these factors, the Court held there was no reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision.
Conclusion
The High Court affirmed the trial court’s order admitting the miscellaneous case for restoration of the partition suit. The civil miscellaneous petition was dismissed as devoid of merit due to inordinate and unexplained delay, coupled with the petitioner’s prior participation in the proceedings.
Implications
This ruling underscores that litigants cannot use COVID-19 as a blanket justification for delay in filing petitions unless the delay strictly falls within the pandemic period. It also highlights that participating in proceedings without objection may bar later challenges to their maintainability. The judgment strengthens procedural discipline by discouraging belated attempts to obstruct ongoing cases.
Cases Referred
- In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation – Applied implicitly to assess the scope of COVID-related delay condonation.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji – Relevant for principles on condonation of delay.
- State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra – Pertinent on the requirement to explain every day’s delay.
FAQs
Q1. Can COVID-19 be used to justify any delay in filing legal petitions?
Only for the period officially recognized by the Supreme Court (March 2020 to February 2022). Delays outside this window require separate justification.
Q2. Does participating in a case waive the right to challenge its maintainability later?
Yes, generally, active participation without timely objection weakens later jurisdictional challenges.
Q3. What happens if a petition is filed after several years without adequate explanation?
It is liable to be dismissed for inordinate and unexplained delay, as seen in this case.
