Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Smt Kuldeep Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Sh. Nanak Mehta – Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 202 of 2022, CM APPL. 54411 of 2022, CM APPL. 40615 of 2023
Decided On : 09-08-2023
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Appeal against Divorce Petition - Delay in filing appeal due to Covid-19 Pandemic and subsequent loss of file by lawyer - Application for condonation of delay dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against a judgment allowing the divorce petition filed by the respondent. The appellant cited inability to receive the copy of judgment, challenges in finding a lawyer due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, and subsequent loss of the file by the lawyer as reasons for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's explanation for the delay was non-descript, non-specific, and vague, lacking any merit. It held that there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay and dismissed the application. Consequently, the appeal against the divorce petition was also dismissed as it was barred by limitation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act due to the circumstances cited by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the period of appeal had already expired before the imposition of the Covid-19 lockdown, and the appellant could not claim the benefit of excluding the lockdown period for calculating the delay. It also noted that the appellant's explanations for the delay were vague and lacked merit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal against the divorce petition as it was barred by limitation.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CM APPL. 54410/2022
1. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against judgment and decree dated 19.11.2019 allowing the petition of divorce filed by the respondent.
2. It is submitted in the Application that the appellant was unable to receive the copy of judgment. When she was somehow able to manage a copy of the same, she searched for the present counsel, however, due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the appeal could not be filed. After the Lockdown was lifted, she again approached her lawyer, who lost his file. It is only after arranging the documents that the appeal was prepared by the learned counsel, but in the process there was a delay of 344 days which may be condoned.
3. Submissions heard.
4. The appellant has filed the present appeal on 14.11.2022 against the judgment dated 19.11.2019. On the date of judgment there was no Lockdown, which got imposed from March, 2020 by which time the 90 days for filing the Appeal, had already expired. Since the period of Appeal had already expired before imposition of Lockdown, she cannot claim benefit of excluding the period from 15th March, 2020 till 28th February, 2022 on the basis of which she has calculated a period of 344 days. In fact, the limitation has to be calculated from the date of judgment which is for more than three and a half years. Moreover, only vague assertions have been made that she was unable to get a copy of the judgment and that her lawyer thereafter lost the file.
5. The non-descript, non-specific and vague explanation given by the appellant in her application, lack any merit. There is no explanation whatsoever what to talk of sufficient ground, for condonation of delay. The appeal is highly belated and there is no ground for condonation of delay. The application is hereby dismissed.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 202/2022
6. In view of the Order passed in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appeal also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
7. The pending applications also stands disposed of accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that vague and non-specific explanations for delay in filing an appeal, especially in the context of Covid-19 related challenges, may not be suffic....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that 'sufficient cause' must be demonstrated for condonation of delay, and negligence or lack of diligence cannot justify the delay. The court a....
The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals must be satisfactorily explained, and inaction prior to the pandemic does not qualify for condonation under the Limitation Act.
Timely filing of appeals is crucial; insufficient justification for delays may result in dismissal.
The court emphasized that in cases affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, the rigid application of the law of limitation is not necessary.
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
An appeal must be filed within the prescribed time unless a satisfactory explanation for delay is provided; ignorance of judgment and missing documents are insufficient reasons.
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.
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
