Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
G.BASAVARAJA
Moyamalli S/o Late Dawalsab Arakati – Appellant
Versus
Khalid S/o Late Dawalsab Arakati – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 20th March, 2025, passed in RA No.93 of 2022 by the 10th Additional District Judge, Belagavi, by which judgment the Application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT , came to be dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was defendant No.4 in OS No.28 of 2010 filed by respondent No.1, seeking relief of partition and separate possession of suit schedule property. The suit came to be decreed holding that the original plaintiff is entitled to one-fourth share in the schedule property. The original plaintiff in the suit, filed Final Decree Proceedings in FDP No.17 of 2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi. The plaintiff manipulated the signature of the appellant herein to obtain the final decree of OS No.28 of 2010, behind the back of his own brother, the appellant herein. When the appellant came to know about the final decree, he filed miscellaneous application bearing No.8 of 2019 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking to set aside the order of the Court which placed him ex-parte in final decree proceedings No.17 of 2017. The m
For a delay to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant must establish sufficient cause, independent of case merits, and allegations of fraud require substantial proof.
A party must provide substantial and convincing evidence to support a claim for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The delay in filing an appeal should be condoned in the interest of justice, where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction by the appellant. The expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5....
The court emphasized the need for a reasonable explanation for delay in presenting an appeal and highlighted the importance of adhering to the substantive law of limitation.
The court held that the appellants' explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactory and that they were aware of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, as evidenced ....
The court ruled that mere negligence and lack of diligence do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act.
Court emphasizes substantial justice over rigid technicalities, allowing for the condonation of a 38-day delay in filing an appeal based on insufficient justification from the respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be decided before proceeding with the appeal on merit, as per the provisions of Ord....
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
