Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DEVAN M.DESAI
LR of Sardar Himmatbhai Khokar – Appellant
Versus
LR of Jesangbhai Amthabhai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under constitution articles (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts of civil suit dismissal (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments for condonation of delay (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. respondent's defense against delay (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. final judgment and order dismissal (Para 9 , 16) |
| 6. court's observations on negligence (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN M. DESAI, J.
1. By way of this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by learned 5th Additional Civil Judge, Vadodara in Civil Misc. Application (Delay) No.1 of 2020 and further prayed to restore Regular Civil Suit No.794 of 2002 to its original status.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. A. R. Kadri for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
4. The petitioners herein has filed a Regular Civil Suit No.794 of 2002 for the relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 30.1.1970 registered with the Office of Sub-Registrar Baroda at Sr. No.387 being bogus, concocted and fraudulent. Petitioner – plaintiff, after framing of issues
Litigants must take responsibility for their legal representation; negligent conduct by an advocate does not negate a party's obligation to remain vigilant about their legal proceedings.
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
Point of law: The litigant does not stand to benefit by approaching the Court of law with an appropriate application at a belated stage. The legislature has in this, as in every civilized country tha....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the emphasis on advancing substantial justice.
Findings of the court - Petitioners in their application for condonation of delay did not change their conduct and preferred multiple adjournment applications with a clear intention of not proceeding....
Point of law: While considering the application for condonation of delay no straight jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. E....
The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant may not justify condoning the delay.
Judicial discretion to condone delays must favor adjudication on merits, particularly where substantive efforts have been made by the litigant.
The court held that sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay under the Limitation Act, and mere negligence of legal counsel does not qualify as such.
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
