Back
MANOJ JAIN
MGO India Private Limited Through Its Authorised Representative – Appellant
Versus
Abhinandan Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Manoj Jain, J.)
1. Petitioner, who had filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, is aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by learned Trial Court whereby the learned Trial Court has observed that there was no delay on the part of defendant in entering appearance.
2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass.
3. Petitioner had filed the aforesaid recovery suit on 20.12.2021.
4. Learned Trial Court directed issuance of summons returnable 02.02.2022.
5. Though the plaintiff (petitioner herein) submitted on record an affidavit of service, the learned Trial Court, specifically, observed that the process had been received back unserved with the report “left without instructions”.
6. Fact remains that on 02.02.2022, there was appearance from the side of the defendant as well. His counsel joined proceedings through videoconferencing and apprised that the defendant had not received any copy of plaint and documents. Learned Trial Court directed the same to be supplied during the course of the day through WhatsApp and email.
7. Simultaneously, defendant was also given liberty to file appearance within the stipulated period, after receiving such copies.
8. The copy of the pla
The court upheld the Trial Court's finding of no delay in the defendant's appearance, considering the pandemic's impact on service timelines.
Timely appearance in court is essential under the CPC, and failure to comply without justifiable reasons can lead to dismissal of applications for condonation of delay.
Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion, and the words 'sufficient cause' in the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice.
The discretion to condone delay under the Limitation Act is based on the explanation provided, not strictly on the length of the delay, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities.
The court held that the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally to ensure substantial justice, especially when the delay is influenced....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the exercise of discretion to advance su....
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 main legal point established is the application of the principles of sufficient cause and the liberal approach in delay condonation cases, emphasizing the need to advance substantial justice and ....
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
