Back
MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Adarsh Vidhya Mandir School – Appellant
Versus
Naresh S/o Shri Kishanlal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J.
1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal is listed in Defects category today. As per office report, the appeal is time barred by 678 days and the appellant has preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. It is further submitted that after receiving the certified copy of the judgment dated 22.02.2017, the same was sent to legal department of the school and the appellant was instructed to file an appeal against the said judgment. Thereafter, the appellant took steps and filed the present appeal. Thus, it is prayed that the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Perused the material available on record.
5. On perusal of material available on record, it is clear that the impugned judgment was passed on 22.02.2017 by the learned trial court in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of demonstrating 'sufficient cause' for delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act, and highlights the principle that inordinate delay should not be con....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that 'sufficient cause' must be demonstrated for condonation of delay, and negligence or lack of diligence cannot justify the delay. The court a....
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.
An appeal must be filed within the prescribed time unless a satisfactory explanation for delay is provided; ignorance of judgment and missing documents are insufficient reasons.
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
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 established that the limitation for appeal is calculated from the original judgment date unless a valid correction alters the operative decree, and a liberal approach in condoning delays is....
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
