Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI
MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI, J
Gummala Atchiyamma – Appellant
Versus
Gummala Chinmayi (died) – Respondent
ORDER :
(B. S. BHANUMATHI, J.)
This revision under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order and decree, dated 30.08.2023, dismissing I.A.No.153 of 2023 in O.S.No.173 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, filed by the defendants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 read with Section 151 CPC to condone delay of 1978 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 21.08.2017, passed in the above suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The case of the defendants, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in brief, are as follows:
The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking partition of the suit schedule property. As no written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants, the trial Court set the defendants ex parte and passed decree, dated 21.08.2017, in favour of the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant is an old lady and unable to move out of the bed and for the said reason, the other defendants 2 to 4 were looking after her health and welfare, and therefore, the written statement could not be filed in the stipulated time due to spread of the corona pandemic. As her healt
The sufficiency of the cause for delay is the primary criterion for condoning delay under the Limitation Act, not merely the length of the delay.
The court emphasized that the sufficiency of the cause for delay, rather than its length, is the key criterion for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The Court can only condone a delay if there is a "sufficient cause" behind such delay, and the reasons provided for the delay must not be non-serious or lacking in diligence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice and remove injustice....
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 clarified that the time frame for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, allowing for extensions in exceptional circumstances, emphasizing parties' responsibility i....
Unexplained delay cannot be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The court held that sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay under the Limitation Act, and mere negligence of legal counsel does not qualify as such.
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
