Back
B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Kudipudi Surya Rao S/o Pentayya – Appellant
Versus
Pilli Sathi Raju S/o Pentayya – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dated 17.03.2015 in I.A. No. 121 of 2014 in A.S. No. 120 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.
2. The revision-petitioner is the appellant in A.S. No. 120 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge “Dismissed” the appeal vide A.S. No. 120 of 2012 on 03.10.2012, for default. The revision-petitioner filed I.A. No. 121 of 2014 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity “the Act”) to condone the delay of 412 days in filing an application to set-aside the above referred dismissal order in the appeal.
3. The revision-petitioner in his affidavit filed before the First Appellate Court stated that for the last sixteen (16) months he was seriously ill and therefore, he could not meet his counsel to give instructions and four days prior to the date of affidavit, he visited the office of his counsel, and he was informed that the appeal was “Dismissed for default” on 03.10.2012 due to non-prosecution.
4. The respondent No. 4 opposed the application and in his verified counter, it was contended that the cause pleaded by the revi
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court cannot extend the limitation on equitable grounds if negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides are made out and the cause pleaded ....
The successful litigant has acquired certain rights based on the judgment under challenge, and a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limi....
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
The court reaffirmed that a sufficient cause must be established for condoning delays under the Limitation Act, and that the discretion to condone such delays is not to be exercised lightly.
In absence of any delay in filing appeal before first appellate Court, it is a matter of right for the party to a litigation to prefer appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expression 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay should be construed liberally on facts, but a distinction can be made between delay....
Unexplained delay cannot be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
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
