Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Iqbal Singh, S/o Gurtej Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jai Lal, S/o Jagdish Prasad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Manoj Kumar Garg, J.) :
The present first appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Original Case No. 17/2019 whereby, the suit for specific performance of agreement dt. 09.09.2015 has been decided ex-parte.
2. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.09.2015 against the appellants-defendants. The appellants did not appear before the learned trial court despite the plaintiff being ready and willing to get the deed executed in his favour, therefore, the learned trial court proceeded ex parte on 12.07.2019 and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.2019, on the basis of statement of P.W. 1. The said statement mentioned that there weren’t any documents to show that the appellants gave assurance to the respondent-plaintiff to execute the sale deed after depositing the amount in the bank after selling out the rabi crop in 2018. It was further argued that no whisper of evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff before the learned trial court that on 13.05.2019 he appeared befo
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 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 reinforced that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the appellant, and ignorance of a judgment is insufficient for condonation.
The failure to provide adequate reasons for delay in filing an appeal results in dismissal, emphasizing the need for vigilance in litigation.
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 confirmed the agreement for sale was valid, limiting the ability to challenge the decree based on delay and highlighting insufficient grounds for procedural impropriety.
The court emphasized that ignorance of a court order due to counsel's negligence does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Second appeal lies to High Court if High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved.
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
