Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Madhav Ch. Das S/o Late Kamini Kanta Das – Appellant
Versus
Sanjoy Gogoi And Ors S/o Late Upananda Gogoi – Respondent
ORDER :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Heard Mr. A.R. Medhi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel Mr. B.Sinha and learned counsel Mr. S. Saikia for the respondent No. 2.
2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with prayer for condonation of delay of 2489 (Two Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine) days. The applicant in this case is Madhav Ch. Das. It is submitted that a review petition for reviewing the judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 passed by this Court in RSA No. 42/2012, was filed on 25.11.2022. The applicant filed a review petition on 25.11.2022 but it was withdrawn vide order dated 08.01.2024 owning to some technicalities and a fresh petition on 11.01.2024 was filed.
3. A title suit was brought up by the applicant for declaration of right, title and interest as well as khas possession with eviction and permanent injunction against the respondents which was registered as Title Suit No. 170/2006. The suit was deiced in favour of this applicant vide the judgment and decree dated
31.08.2010.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010, the appellant/defendant/respondent preferred Tile Appeal No. 22/2010 before the Additional District
The court held that a significant delay in filing a review petition cannot be condoned without sufficient explanation, especially when a prior Supreme Court ruling exists.
The court emphasized the need to adhere to the statutory limitation period and the requirement of showing sufficient cause for delay in seeking review of judgment and decree.
The State must provide satisfactory reasons for delay in filing petitions; bureaucratic inefficiency is no excuse. Condonation of delay should not undermine the principles of timely justice.
The court ruled that a party cannot justify an inordinate delay in filing a review petition based on subsequent overruling of a prior decision, as it violates the principles of limitation and suffici....
The sufficiency of the cause for condoning delay is paramount, and a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is justified when no mala fides are present, despite the length of the delay.
Diligence and urgency are crucial in pursuing legal remedies, and the absence of satisfactory explanation and good faith may lead to the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a bona fide explanation for delay in filing applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court emphasized the ....
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
