Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI, NYAPATHY VIJAY
Karri Adilakshmi W/o Karri Rama Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Sakthi Finance Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri T. V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/decree holder in all the civil revision petitions and civil miscellaneous appeals.
2. The petitioner/1st respondent is decree holder in whose favour there are two arbitration awards in AC Nos.50 & 51 of 2010 against the judgment debtors, the petitioners in civil revision petitions/appellants in civil miscellaneous appeals, two in number. The judgment debtors filed their respective separate objections/claim against the attachment of E. P. Schedule properties in E.P.Nos.605 & 606 of 2016. They were dismissed in default on 26.04.2018. The judgment debtors’ applications for setting aside that Order under Order 21 Rule 105 (2) and 106 r/w. Section 151 CPC, were rejected on 07.08.2023, consequent upon rejection of their Section 5 application for condonation of delay in filing application for setting aside the Order dated 26.04.2018. Challenging the orders dated 07.08.2023, aforesaid four civil revision petitions and four civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed by the judgment debtors.
3. The Orders under
The court established that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is essential in delay condonation applications to ensure justice is served.
The court established that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is essential to uphold the principles of substantial justice in delay condonation applications.
The court ruled that a liberal approach cannot override statutory limitations, emphasizing the need for a satisfactory explanation for delays in filing appeals.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
Point of law: applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) rule 105 or the opposite party against whom an order is passed ex-parte under sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-rule (1)....
The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay should be decided on merits, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, especially when the delay is not due to negligence.
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
