Back
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Ajay Aggarwal (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs – Appellant
Versus
Britannia Industries Ltd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Girish Kathpalia, J.
CM APPL. 55240/2023 (for condonation of delay of 350 days in filing) & CM APPL. 55241/2023 (for condonation of delay of 101 days in re-filing)
1. The appellants, being legal representatives of the original plaintiff substituted the plaintiff before the trial court after his death. The suit for recovery of Rs. 7,48,874.89 with interest was partly decreed for a sum of only Rs. 79,846.85 with interest. Hence the present appeal by the appellants, claiming the entire suit amount.
2. The impugned judgment and decree being dated 13.12.2021, the prescribed period of limitation to file appeal expired on 15.03.2022, but the appeal was filed on 27.02.2023. Even thereafter, more than 100 days were spent by the appellants on rectification of defects raised by the Registry.
3. By way of the present applications, the appellants seek condonation of delay of 350 days in filing the appeal and 101 days in re-filing the appeal. Reply to the application has already been filed. I have heard learned counsel for both sides.
4. The delay in filing the appeal has been explained in completely vague manner, stating that the appellants had no knowledge about the case. It would be appo
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
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.
Inordinate delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause explaining each day's delay, substantiated by evidence; vague, unsubstantiated plea of family illness fails against rigorous limitation la....
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 court ruled that mere negligence and inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal.
The court reiterated that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal lies with the appellant, and mere ignorance or reliance on counsel is insufficient.
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
