Back
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR
Omdeo Baliram Musale – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Ramchandra Mamidwar – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Special Leave Petition is against the decision of the High Court1[In CA No. 1109/2013 in MCA No. 12275/2013 in CRA No. 284/2003 dated 05.11.2014.] in dismissing an application for restoration of a Civil Revision Application and the accompanying application for condonation of delay in sheer exasperation. The facts are as follows:
2. A simple prayer was made by the petitioners in a suit for declaration that the property belonging to the joint family, but their father wrongly sold it to third parties through a sale deed in the year 1980.
3. The suit came to be dismissed for default for not paying the process fee for service of notice on the LRs. of defendant no.2. The petitioners therefore filed an application for restoration in 1993.
4. This application for restoration was decided after seven years and the Trial Court on 04.02.2000 dismissed the application on the ground that it was filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC whereas it ought to have been filed under Order IX Rule 4 of the CPC as the suit was originally dismissed under Order IX, Rule 2 of the CPC. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order.
5. After three years, the appeal came to be dismissed on 25.06.2
There must be a solution, idea and resolve to ensure that simple, quick and easy remedies are available to correct an illegality for a rightful restitution.
The court reaffirmed that delays in property rights cases can be condoned when substantial interests are at stake, particularly when due to attorney oversight.
The court reinforced that an excessive delay in seeking restoration of a suit cannot be condoned based on vague explanations, as it undermines the principles of the law of limitation.
Period of limitation – Litigant should not be permitted to throw entire blame on head of Advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.
Interest of justice and fair adjudication should be considered in allowing the condonation of delay and restoration of a suit.
Findings of the court - Petitioners in their application for condonation of delay did not change their conduct and preferred multiple adjournment applications with a clear intention of not proceeding....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
