Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI, NYAPATHY VIJAY
B.S.V.M. Durga Prasad, S/o.B.V.Nagalah – Appellant
Versus
Chevuri Anuradha, W/o.Lakshmi Narayana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)
Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Sri T.V.P. Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.
2. The plaintiffs respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.14 of 2016 for the relief of possession of plaint schedule property against the defendants in the suit and for some other reliefs. In the said suit, third party namely B.S.P.M. Durga Prasad filed I.A.No.177 of 2016 for the impleadment under Order I rule 10 C.P.C to implead as 7th defendant and his two brothers as defendants 8 and 9 in the O.S. I.A was dismissed on 20.08.2018, in default.
3. The third party would also be referred as appellant in both the cases.
4. The third party filed I.A.No.1344 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1493 days in filing the petition for setting aside the dismissal order and for restoration of I.A.No.177 of 2016.
5. The plaintiff-respondents filed counter. They submitted that there were no grounds to condone the delay and to set aside the dismissal order dated 20.08.2018. The application was liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada framed the point for consi
The sufficiency of cause is essential for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; mere negligence of counsel is insufficient without evidence of diligence from the litigant.
The court emphasized that litigants owe a duty to track their cases vigilantly and cannot solely blame their lawyers for delays when seeking to condone significant time lapses.
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
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, 1963, to advance substantial justice.
The court ruled that mere negligence and inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal.
A mere claim of Counsel's neglect does not suffice for condonation of delay without establishing sufficient cause; litigants maintain responsibility for timely action.
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)....
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
