Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Gordhan & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Prasanna Chand Burad - Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 72/2021
Decided On : 20-07-2021
CONDONATION - LIMITATION ACT - The court granted the appellants' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing that the appellants were unaware of the suit's pendency and the decree passed against them, which was crucial in determining their entitlement to appeal despite the property transfer occurring during the litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract against Abdul Raseed and Ayub Bhai in 2011. The suit property was transferred to the appellants via a registered sale-deed in October 2011, which was not disclosed to the trial court. The trial court decreed the suit in April 2014, and the appellants became aware of the decree only when notified by revenue authorities, leading them to file an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were unaware of the suit's pendency and the decree, and thus, the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable. The court accepted their application for leave to appeal and allowed the condonation of delay.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act given the circumstances of the case, including the appellants' lack of knowledge about the suit and decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ignorance of the appellants regarding the suit's pendency and the decree was a valid ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, as they had no means to be aware of the ongoing litigation.
Result: The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties. An application has been filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff against Abdul Raseed and Ayub Bhai seeking specific performance of contract dated 24.08.1995 in the year 2011. Even after filing of the suit, the suit property was transferred to the appellants by a registered sale-deed on 05.10.2011. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the trial court and after contest, the trial court decreed the suit on 10.04.2014. The appellants on becoming aware of the passing of the decree when the revenue authorities informed them about the mutation entries, filed present appeal alongwith leave to appeal.
The leave to appeal has been granted by the Court by its order dated 03.03.2021 and in view of the fact that the appellants were unaware of the pendency of the suit and passing of the decree, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, made submissions that though the leave to appeal has been granted by the Court, the fact that the property was transferred after filing of the suit, the appellants are not entitled to seek condonation of delay.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The facts are not in dispute wherein based on an agreement to sale dated 24.08.1995, the suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, during the pendency of the suit, defendant transferred the suit property to the appellants and did not disclose the said fact before the trial court and ultimately the trial court decreed the suit. There is no material on record to indicate that the appellants were aware of the pendency of the suit or passing of the decree.
As the appellants have been found entitled to file appeal while accepting their application for leave to appeal, the delay in filing the appeal in the circumstances, deserves to be condoned.
Consequently, the application filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay in filng the appeal is condoned.
List the appeal for admission on 02.08.2021 after reflecting the name of Mr. Rajat Dave as counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff in the cause list.
The court established that a lack of knowledge about the pendency of a suit and a decree can justify the condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The court may condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the appellant was unaware of the pendency of the suit and passing of the decree.
The court condoned the 330-day delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural delays and acknowledging the appellants' lack of knowledge and proper le....
The court reinforced that the burden of proving 'sufficient cause' for delay lies with the appellant, and mere claims of ignorance are insufficient.
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.
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
The court reinforced that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the appellant, and ignorance of a judgment is insufficient for condonation.
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.
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
