Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR, J
M/S NAKODA BANGLES – Appellant
Versus
PRAKASH DYEING M.F.G. CO. LTD. AND ANR. – Respondent
Order :
1. This appeal is barred by limitation of 323 days.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has serious objection regarding non-disclosure of reason for condonation of delay in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act .
3. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act contains following statement :
“1. That this appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Pali in Civil Suit No. 135/2010.
2. That the appellant had no knowledge about the said judgment. The counsel for the appellant also did not inform the appellant about the judgment. However, the appellant contacted the counsel, then he was informed that the suit has been dismissed in the month of January, 2018 itself.
3. That thereafter the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment and the same was obtained Immediately thereafter the appellant rushed to Jodhpur and contacted a counsel. The counsel for the appellant advised that some important documents are missing in the record which were not produced before the learned court below, therefore, the appellant should search those documents and collect the same and bring the same.
4. That ther
An appeal must be filed within the prescribed time unless a satisfactory explanation for delay is provided; ignorance of judgment and missing documents are insufficient reasons.
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 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 strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
Period of limitation – Exclusion of time – Time taken in obtaining certified copy of decree under appeal is excluded from period consumed.
The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals must be satisfactorily explained, and inaction prior to the pandemic does not qualify for condonation under 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
