Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE
Haroj Ali Sardar – Appellant
Versus
Panna Lal Chandra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
In Re: CAN 1 of 2024
1. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been submitted before this Court with a prayer for condonation of substantial delay of 2931 days in filing of the second appeal, primarily attributable to the pendency of the proceeding under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) and illness suffered by the petitioner, which circumstances have collectively impeded the timely prosecution of the present matter.
Background in Brief:-
2. One title suit being no. 48 of 2006 was instituted by the respondents/opposite party with a prayer for a decree for eviction and revocation of license against the appellant/petitioner. Ld. Trial Court dismissed the said title suit by the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2013 which was assailed in Title Appeal no. 134 of 2013 wherein Ld. Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court, thereby directing appellant/ petitioner to vacate the suit property within two months.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Ld. Appellate Court, appellant/petitioner took out an application for review under Order
Inordinate delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned due to counsel's negligence or misunderstanding of law; strict adherence to limitations is required.
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 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.
Timeliness in legal proceedings is critical, and mere health claims must be substantiated with evidence to justify delays in filings; lack of sufficient cause leads to dismissal of condonation applic....
(1) – Limitation period – Length of delay is a relevant matter which court must take into consideration while considering whether delay should be condoned or not – While considering plea for condona....
Condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of Civil Suit – Delay to be condoned in interest of justice provided that applicant satisfies court that he had sufficient cause for not pre....
The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay should be decided on merits, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, especially when the delay is not due to negligence.
The sufficiency of the cause for condoning delay is paramount, and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is justified when no mala fides are present, despite the length of the delay.
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
