Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. DOSHI
Farzan Kali Pardiwala Through Kali Minu Pardiwala – Appellant
Versus
Sarosh Minu Pardiwala (Decd.) – Respondent
ORDER :
J.C. DOSHI, J.
1. This petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 549 days occurred in filing Civil Application for setting aside the abatement and permitting the petitioner to take recourse of provision of Order 22 Rule 4-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The brief facts are as under :
2.1 The petitioner Farzan Kali Pardiwala has filed Special Civil Suit No. 147 of 2015 before the Principal Senior Civil Court, at Vapi, District Valsad against the defendant Sarosh Minu Pardiwala and Mayaben Sarosh Pardiwala for the relief of declaration and cancellation of registered sale deed No. 4108 dated 19.4.2010 and to obtain the possession of the part of land of Survey No. 1080, City survey No. 3675. The suit was filed by Kali Minu Paridwala as the power of attorney holder of Farzan Kali Pardiwala.
2.2 According to the suit averment, the suit property was sold to the defendant by the registered sale deed No. 4108 on 19.4.2010 at the sale consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The defendant paid the sale consideration by way of cheque which got dishonored and therefore, the plaintiff claimed that title of the suit property does not pass upon the defe
Timely filing of appeals is essential, and adequate justification for delays must be shown; failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition for condonation.
The court emphasized the need for a satisfactory explanation for delay and cautioned against rendering statutory provisions redundant and inoperative.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while also requiring satisfactory explanations for excessive delays.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while ensuring timely legal action.
Point of law: Once court accepts explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisiiona....
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 the approach to condonation of delay should be liberal and justice-oriented, focusing on the explanation provided rather than the mere length of delay.
The sufficiency of cause is essential for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; mere negligence of counsel is insufficient without evidence of diligence from the litigant.
The court emphasized the need for a reasonable explanation for delay in presenting an appeal and highlighted the importance of adhering to the substantive law of limitation.
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
