1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is a Plaintiffs appeal. The challenge is to an order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Notice of Motion of the Respondents/Defendants. That Notice of Motion requested condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement and praying for an opportunity to defend the suit on merits.
3. The learned Judge has found that in a suit instituted in this Court in the year 2000 no substantial steps were taken for a period of nearly 15 years on account of exigencies of work and a heavy workload before the Court, in his discretion, the delay deserved to be condoned by granting opportunity to defend the suit. While doing so, the learned Judge has imposed a condition of payment of costs quantified at Rs. 5 Lakhs.
4. The Plaintiff is aggrieved by such an order and the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/Appellant submits that the learned Judge wrongly assumed the delay to be of 5 years and 54 days. It was much more. That apart, even that enormous delay was not explained satisfactorily. The one paragraph explanation from the Respondents that a Power of Attorney was granted in favour of the Respondents/Defendants' son, as the Defendants were traveling and that son did not attend the Court proceedings, hardly constitutes sufficient cause much less a reasonable explanation for the delay.
5. In the impugned order, the learned Judge has assigned reasons. He has found from the record and the affidavits placed, that even the Appellant/Plaintiff did not take any concrete steps. In a suit filed in the year 2000, the writ of summons was not prepared and served till 2009. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the explanation that the writ of summons was served promptly has not been accepted. The learned Judge has found that the writ of summons was not served for a period of nine years after institution or filing of the suit. In such circumstances an overall view of the matter was taken and by balancing the rights and equities, the learned Judge has granted the request of the Respondents to allow them to file the Written Statement and defend the suit/claim on merits. In the process, the learned Judge has relied upon well settled principle that all procedural rules are handmaids of justice. So long as there is no irreparable loss or prejudice or a case made out of malafides ordinarily a party should be allowed to defend legal proceedings is the rule invoked and applied, then, we do not think that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the application of such rule can be faulted. Once the rights and equities have been balanced, then, we do not think that in further appellate jurisdiction such an order deserves interference. The Appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. By consent of parties, the time to take inspection of the documents and complete pretrial formalities is extended by eight weeks.
6. In view of disposal of the appeal, nothing survives in the above Notice of Motion and the same is disposed off as such.