Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Ravindra – Appellant
Versus
Shailendra Kumar Agarwal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's delay due to counsel's death. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant argues against being punished for counsel's failure. (Para 3) |
| 3. court is not satisfied with delay reasons. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. citations demonstrate counsel's accountability in delay. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. restoration application dismissed. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This restoration application, which is reported to be time barred by 1981 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT
2. It is stated in the application that the appellant/plaintiff came to know in the first week of May, 2023 that his counsel Shri Sanjay Sharma has passed away on 09.08.2022 and thereafter, when he visited this Court on 10.05.2023, it transpired that the civil second appeal was dismissed on 13.09.2017 of which he was never communicated.
3. Reiterating the averments made in the application, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that he should not be punished for fault of his counsel. She, therefore, prays that the delay in restoration application be condoned.
4. Heard. Considered.
5. The reasons assigned in the application seeking condonation of delay are far from
A party seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must demonstrate sufficient cause; mere invocation of a liberal approach unaccompanied by due diligence will not suffice.
Condonation of delay in filing restoration application due to counsel's mistake
The court emphasized the necessity of a communication system for litigants to prevent delays in justice, allowing the restoration application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
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 primary legal point established is that the responsibility for compliance with court orders lies with the counsel, and the litigant cannot be held accountable for the counsel's negligence.
Inordinate delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned due to counsel's negligence or misunderstanding of law; strict adherence to limitations is required.
The court established that while a liberal approach to condoning delay is necessary, persistent negligence and lack of sufficient cause can justify dismissal of appeals.
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
