US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Chetan Ram S/o Kewal Ram – Appellant
Versus
Lrs Of Sua Devi, Araba, Tehsil Pachpadra, Dis. Barmer – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
1. The present first appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast track) No.2, District Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 01/2011 whereby, the suit of cancellation of sale deed and perpetual injunction has been decreed.
2. The respondent no.1 plaintiff Smt. Sua Devi had filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.10.2008 and permanent injunction against the appellant. The summons were issued by the trial court to the defendants but the defendant Sunil did not appear despite service. The notices were served upon the appellant but no written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant and finally the right to file written statement was closed by the trial court on 06.08.2011. The learned trial court proceeded ex parte and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2011 on the basis of statement of the plaintiff and affidavits, and it was held that the defendant no.1 had executed the sale deed upon receiving the consideration and also handed over the property in question and therefore, the defendant no.1 wa
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.
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 that the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigours when the statute prescribes, and the court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
A party must provide substantial and convincing evidence to support a claim for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
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
Listen Article