Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Saurendra S/o Sh. Bajrang Lal – Appellant
Versus
Bhugani W/o Sh. Surendra D/o Om Prakash – Respondent
ORDER :
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
1.Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner husband challenging the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar in Criminal appeal No. 15/2025 whereby, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner husband submits that the learned appellate court has committed an error of law in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. It is submitted that the petitioner works as a labourer outside the State and he was not informed about the order by his lawyer. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the order, the petitioner filed the appeal against the judgment of trial court dated 18.07.2023. Thus, the delay caused in filing the appeal was purely bonafide, therefore, the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh may be quashed and set aside.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders as well as material available on record.
4. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is reproduced hereinunder for our reference:
“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain
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 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 ruled that a delay of 1994 days in filing an appeal cannot be condoned due to lack of sufficient cause, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action.
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 established that the limitation for appeal is calculated from the original judgment date unless a valid correction alters the operative decree, and a liberal approach in condoning delays is....
The court reinforced that the burden of proving 'sufficient cause' for delay lies with the appellant, and mere claims of ignorance are insufficient.
Inordinate delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause explaining each day's delay, substantiated by evidence; vague, unsubstantiated plea of family illness fails against rigorous limitation la....
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
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
