Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
RAVI NATH TILHARI
Nemani Anantha Padmanabham – Appellant
Versus
Nemani Krishna Mahira – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Heard Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
2. The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.33 of 2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada.
3. The plaintiff/1st respondent filed O.S.No.33 of 2016, pending in the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. During pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant therein, namely Nemani Suryanarayana Murthy died on 30.03.2019. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.1265 of 2019 on 12.09.2019 to substitute legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant, but there was delay and the application was not supported by any application for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement. Consequently, I.A.No.1265 of 2019 was rejected by order dated 09.09.2022. Challenging the said Order, the plaintiff/1st respondent filed CRP.No.2295 of 2022. During pendency of the said revision, the plaintiff/1st respondent, realizing said mistake, also filed I.A.Nos.915, 916 and 917 of 2023 in the suit to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant along with the applications for condonation of delay and setting asid
The court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays for substituting legal representatives, prioritizing substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural timelines.
The court emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delay, stating that sufficient cause should be interpreted broadly to serve justice, rather than strictly adhering to procedural technicalities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased defendant on record should be condoned if no prejudice would be caused to the ....
In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on its part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be ....
The word 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafide....
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
