Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J
Mahadev S/o Gangaram, (Died During Revision Petition) – Appellant
Versus
Nathu S/o Late Shree Harnath – Respondent
The paragraph that highlights that the client should not suffer due to counsel's errors is (!) . It discusses that if appeals are filed in a wrong court due to the obviously wrong or negligent advice of their lawyers, the parties should not be penalized for such mistakes, emphasizing that the law recognizes mistakes or mistaken advice of lawyers as valid grounds for condoning delays.
JUDGMENT :
1.Pursuant to order of this Court dated 28.01.2025, learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the thumb impressions of the petitioners on the compromise deed dated 09.01.2002. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, “BoR”) whereby, while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioners/defendants (for brevity, “defendants”), the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur allowing the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs (for brevity, “plaintiffs”) under Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, “the Act, 1963”) has been affirmed.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents (for brevity, “plaintiffs”) against the defendants for declaration and correction of entries came to be dismissed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur-Ist (for brevity, “trial Court”) vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2002. Thereafter, they filed another suit against the defendants qua the same agriculture land for declaration, partition and permanent injunction which came to be dismissed by the trial
A bona fide mistake or negligent advice from a lawyer may constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for substantial justice.
Point of law: While considering the application for condonation of delay no straight jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. E....
Conduct, behaviour and attitude relating to inaction/negligence by the appellant disentitle him to seek discretionary relief.
The discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be exercised judiciously, ensuring substantial justice while adhering to statutory principles.
The court emphasized that mere reliance on counsel does not justify inordinate delay in filing an appeal; sufficient cause must be shown by the appellant.
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
