Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Rinku Das, D/o. Late Radha Raman Das – Appellant
Versus
On The Death Of Late Kali Prasad Seal His Legal Heirs Smti Manju Seal, (W/o. Late Kali Prasad Seal) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)
Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. This is an Appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the order dated 31.08.2017 passed in petition No.443/2015 dated 30.01.2015 arising out of Title Appeal No.12/2017 whereby the petition No.443/2015 which was an application filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 (for short, ‘the Act of 1963) read with Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code was rejected and thereby leading to the dismissal of the Appeal being Title Appeal No.12/2015 and the confirmation of the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2014 in Title Suit No.498/2010.
3. It is relevant to take note of that vide an order dated 04.12.2017, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the Appeal by formulating two substantial questions of law which reads as under:-
1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed error of law in not considering the grounds as stated by the appellant in the condonation of application as sufficient ground and rejecting the
A court must liberally interpret sufficient grounds for condoning delays in filing appeals, prioritizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
The Court has the authority to exercise liberal discretion in condoning delays due to mistaken legal advice in appeal cases under the Limitation Act.
The court emphasized a liberal application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, recognizing that delays attributed to erroneous legal advice merit condonation, allowing the matter to be decided on its....
The Court held that a stay application in execution proceedings cannot be granted prior to condoning significant delay in the underlying appeal, emphasizing the necessity of following procedural requ....
The court emphasized a liberal and justice-oriented approach in considering applications for condonation of delay, rejecting hyper-technical standards that undermine substantive rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing an Appeal, emphasizing the need for a ju....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay, emphasizing the elastic natu....
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
