Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI
Thota Vasudeva Rao – Appellant
Versus
Pyla Venkata Ramana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Tota Tejaswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the respondent.
2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed OS No.361 of 2015 in the Court of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent. The suit was dismissed on 29.09.2022.
3. The petitioner preferred AS No. of 2023 with delay of 281 days. IA No.1625 of 2023 was filed under Order XLI Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. The petitioner, inter alia, submitted that after acquiring the knowledge of the dismissal of the suit, he approached the Counsel to obtain the certified copy of the judgment and decree, to prefer the appeal within the stipulated time. But, the Counsel did not apply for considerable period. The petitioner then approached another Counsel but in vain he also did not file the appeal. The petitioner then took back the case file from that Counsel and contacted the third Counsel on 27.05.2023, who after verifying the certified copies and preparing the case, filed the appeal. Bu
A mere claim of Counsel's neglect does not suffice for condonation of delay without establishing sufficient cause; litigants maintain responsibility for timely action.
The court emphasized a liberal approach in assessing sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly when the delay is marginal and does not prejudice th....
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.
Litigants must demonstrate diligence in their appeals, as negligence or blame on counsel does not justify condonation of significant delays.
Unexplained delay cannot be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The concept of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, and the length of delay is not a deci....
Delay in filing civil revisions can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach.
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
