Back
M. S. SONAK
Salcette De Miranda E Borges – Appellant
Versus
Helder Joaquim Das Santas – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard Mr Lobo for the petitioners.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. Mr Lobo states that respondents have been duly served and an affidavit of service has already been filed.
4. This petition questions the order dtd. 10/11/2021 by which the trial Court has condoned the delay and restored the suit dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. Mr Lobo submits that there was a delay of almost ten years which was not at all explained. He points out that except for a bare statement that the plaintiffs learned about the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution on 20/1/2017, no other explanation is given in the application. He points out that no specific prayer was made for condonation of delay. He submits that the Trial Court acted perversely and arbitrarily in condoning such an inordinate delay and restoring the suit. For all these reasons, Mr Lobo submits that the impugned order warrants interference.
6. Since the respondents have not appeared despite service, the application dtd. 31/1/2017 by which restoration was applied was perused. The application pointed out the confusion occasioned, perhaps, due to the statements of some of the defendants that plaintiff no.2 had
The court established that a trial court's discretion to condone delays and restore suits should be respected unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or malafides, while also ensuring that th....
Judicial discretion to condone delays must favor adjudication on merits, particularly where substantive efforts have been made by the litigant.
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the emphasis on advancing substantial justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot be deprived of justice on technical grounds, and the court can exercise discretion to condone delay in the absence of a formal ....
The court established that a formal application for condonation of delay is not mandatory under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing for discretion in restoring applications.
Appeal – Whenever delay of a long period of time is sought to be condoned, Court should not rule out involvement of third parties in litigation.
The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant may not justify condoning the delay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prescribed period of limitation for filing a restoration application, the need for a sufficient cause to condone ....
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
