Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
P. C. Lalthlamuana S/o Lalngaia (L) – Appellant
Versus
Vanlalruatsangi D/o Muanzuala (L) – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in preferring the connected appeal against the order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl in Heirship Application No. 1135/2020. Though the delay was stated to be of 45 days, the same was found by the Office to be 520 days. Accordingly, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicant attempting to explain the said delay.
2. I have heard Shri Lalfakwma, learned counsel for the applicant. I have also heard Shri J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party/respondent no. 1.
3. Shri Lalfakwma, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the subject matter of appeal is an order dated 25.11.2020 pertaining to allowing the Heirship Application of the opposite party no. 1. At the outset, he submits that though in an application for delay condonation, one is not normally required to traverse upon the merits of the matter, in the instant case, it may also have a bearing as according to the applicant, he is the only surviving son of the original owner. On the other hand, the opposite party no
The court emphasized that while condoning delay, a pragmatic approach must balance the rights of parties, and costs may be imposed to ensure fairness.
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 importance of truthfulness and genuineness in setting out the grounds of delay in an application for condonation of delay.
Substitution – Limitation – For setting aside abatement of proceedings, court is supposed to strike a balance – There is no bar to exercise by Court/Tribunal, of its discretion, to condone delay in a....
Inordinate 168-day delay in matrimonial appeal not condoned; misconception of limitation period and bicycle injury deemed insufficient cause due to negligence, lack of diligence and bona fides.
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.
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
