Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Nelson Sailo
Jonah Lalrempuia S/o Vawma Gangte (L), R/o Durtlang Leitan, Aizawl – Appellant
Versus
Smt Lalhmuchhuaki W/o Vanlalvena – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NELSON SAILO, J.
Heard Mr. C Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellant and B Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent. By filing this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(t) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the appellant seeks for setting aside the Order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the learned Addl.District Judge-II, Aizawl in CMA No. 672/2023 A/o RFA No. 5/2023 by which, the application for restoration of RFA No. 5/2023 and the connected CMA No. 160/2023 were rejected and dismissed.
[2.] Brief facts of the case is that Money Suit No. 138/2018 was filed by the instant respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs. 16,80,000/- from the instant appellant or obtaining LSC No. 102801/01/900 of 2007. The Money Suit was disposed of in favour of the respondent vide Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2020 and a Decree was passed ex-parte against the appellant. Against the same, the present appellant filed CMA No. 213/2020 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte Order and Decree dated 05.08.2020 but however, the application was rejected and dismissed vide Order dated 07.12.2021.
[3.] The appellant being aggrieved filed RFA No. 19/2022 before this Court alongwi
A litigant should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel, and courts must consider sufficient cause for delays with a justice-oriented approach.
Order passed under Rule 13 of Order 9 of CPC rejecting application for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte, appeal would lie under Order XLIII Rule 1 (d) of CPC.
The delay in filing an appeal must be condoned before the Court proceeds to consider the appeal.
The court emphasized the need for substantial justice, the wide discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the balance of convenience between the parties.
The primary legal point established is that the responsibility for compliance with court orders lies with the counsel, and the litigant cannot be held accountable for the counsel's negligence.
Litigants are not penalized for their Advocate's negligence; restoration of a suit can be granted based on demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in filing a restoration application can be condoned to prevent miscarriage of justice, even without a formal application for condonation....
Condonation of Delay – Second Appeal - when an appeal is barred by limitation and an application is made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay along with the memorandum o....
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
