Back
ANIL L. PANSARE
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Omprakash – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Anil L. Pansare, J.)
1. Heard Ms D.V. Sapkal, learned A.G.P. for the appellants and Shri M.M. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
2. Whether the lower appellate Court has arrived at perverse finding of fact to the effect that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant in filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation."
3. The appellant/State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by order dated 1/10/2008 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli in Misc. Civil Application No. 20/2008 refusing to condone delay of 14 months 10 days in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2/4/2007 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Suit No. 9/2005.
4. Shri M.M. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the first substantial question of law
The law of limitation binds all parties, including the Government, and sufficient cause must be shown to condone delays in filing appeals.
Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act requires substantial justification, and the State is treated no differently than private litigants in these matters.
The court held that bureaucratic inefficiencies do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays in appeals, emphasizing accountability in litigation processes.
The law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to; bureaucratic delays are not sufficient grounds for condoning delays in filing appeals.
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
