Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Ratan Lal, S/o Shri Gena Ram Seervi – Appellant
Versus
Narayan Lal, S/o Shri Deva Ram Seervi – Respondent
ORDER :
The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 18.03.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali, in Civil Appeal Decree No. 07/2010 affirming the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Bar, District Pali, Civil Original Case No. 61/1997 whereby, the suit filed by respondent plaintiffs for possession and permanent injunction has been decreed.
2. The present appeal has been listed in ‘Defect’ category as the same is barred by delay of 1899 days. The appellants had filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment was passed by the court below on 18.03.2019 but the appellants had no knowledge about the said judgment. It is argued that most of the appellants resided out of Rajasthan in Tamil Nadu for many years and due to medical condition also, so they could not remain in touch with his counsel. The appellants had faith and trust in their counsel but were never informed about the judgment. It is further argued that the impugned judgment and decree was passed in 2010, but respondent-plaintiff did no
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 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.
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 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 held that the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally to ensure substantial justice, especially when the delay is influenced....
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 mere claims of ignorance are insufficient.
The court ruled that mere negligence and inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal.
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
