Back
ARUN BHANSALI
Shobha Lal – Appellant
Versus
Shankari – Respondent
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.2.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, whereby, the application filed by respondent under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was allowed.
2. The principal submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application Order IX Rule 9 CPC was barred by 65 days, for which, though an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the respondents, the trial court without deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoning the delay, went on to decide the main application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC and, therefore, the passing of the order by the trial court without condoning the delay, is ex-facie without jurisdiction, the same deserves to be set aside and the application deserves to be dismissed.
3. Further submissions have been made that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed alongwith application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC does not disclose any sufficient cause for the delay and, therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the respo
A court must condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before considering applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to ensure jurisdictional compliance.
Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are typically inapplicable to proceedings under Order XXI of CPC unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice and remove injustice....
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
A party's knowledge of a lawsuit does not negate the right to challenge an ex-parte decree if sufficient cause for delay in filing is shown, and interlocutory evidence does not require strict proof.
The rejection of applications for condonation of delay in filing petitions under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC leads to the dismissal of the main petitions, making them appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(d....
The sufficiency of the cause for delay is the primary criterion for condoning delay under the Limitation Act, not merely the length of the delay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot be deprived of justice on technical grounds, and the court can exercise discretion to condone delay in the absence of a formal ....
The court established that a formal application for condonation of delay is not mandatory under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing for discretion in restoring applications.
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
