Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN
S. Gunasekaran – Appellant
Versus
Jayalakshmi Trading Co. , Guntur Town – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.
1. This civil revision petition is directed against the orders dated 10.09.2024 in IA No.73 of 2024 in IA No.479 of 2018 in COS No.17 of 2018, on the file of Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada, by which the Trial Court has rejected the application filed under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT to condone the delay of 278 days in filing the application to restore the petition in IA No.479 of 2018.
2. Heard Sri V. Ch. Naidu, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and none appeared for the respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows :
(a) This revision petition is preferred by the defendant in suit COS No.17 of 2018, questioning the order dated 10.09.2024, passed in IA No.73 of 2024 in IA No.479 of 2018 in COS No.17 of 2018. This application was filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT to condone the delay of 278 days in filing the restoration application in IA No.479 of 2018.
(b) The respondent/plaintiff filed OS No.386 of 2017 for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,26,34,057/- and also for subsequent interest thereon before II Additional District Judge, Guntur. After receiving the summons,
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 convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
A party seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must demonstrate sufficient cause; mere invocation of a liberal approach unaccompanied by due diligence will not suffice.
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.
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
