Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Past Licenses and Undertaking Prove Knowledge of Copyright License Need, Warrant Ad-Interim Injunction: Bombay HC
13 Mar 2026
Non-Compliance on Counter Affidavits Draws Exemplary Costs Warning: Supreme Court in Gauri Maulekhi PIL
13 Mar 2026
SLPs Challenging PoP Idol Immersion Orders Disposed as Infructuous; Liberty to Assist Bombay HC: Supreme Court
13 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Sayed Ali – Appellant
Versus
Manir Ali Hazi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present appeal is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 21.02.2014, passed by the learned First Appellate Court in T.A. No. 66/2013, whereby the learned Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal by refusing to condone the delay of 39 days thereby dismissing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that the appellant has failed to show sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of time.
3. The present appeal was admitted by this court on the following substantial question of law:
(ii) Whether the
The delay in filing an appeal should be condoned in the interest of justice, where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction by the appellant. The expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5....
The principle of liberal construction in delay applications under limitation laws emphasized by the court.
The court reinforced that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the appellant, and ignorance of a judgment is insufficient for condonation.
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.
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.
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
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
Listen Article