Back
DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Bharti Airtel Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Velshibhai Arjanbhai Patel Decd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 waives service of rule.
2. By filing instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and under Order XLI, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the writ petitioner has challenge the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Botad in Civil Misc. Application No.9 of 2024, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay caused in preferring Civil Misc. Application has been rejected.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Rajabhai Gogda for the petitioner and learned advocate, Mr. Nisarg Shah for the respondent no.4.
4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present application are as under,
4.2 On filing of the suit, notice was issued, which was eventually served upon the petitioner and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner had appeared through advocate and filed his written stat
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 judgment emphasizes the requirement of sufficient cause for condoning delay, as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and established legal principles from relevant judgments.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in filing appeals, with negligence and inaction being critical factors.
The principle that the law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to unless a party can demonstrate sufficient cause for any delay, with negligence or lack of bona fides being significant factor....
The law of limitation must be applied strictly, and delay in filing appeals can only be condoned on sufficient cause, which was not established in this case.
(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....
The law of limitation is to be strictly enforced, and the burden lies on the appellant to demonstrate sufficient cause for any delay in filing an appeal, which must not be attributed to negligence or....
The court held that for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party must demonstrate sufficient cause, with mere negligence or vague explanations failing to meet this burden.
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
