Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Shanker Lal, S/o Shri Gopal Lal Ji Daroga – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Ji Vaishnav – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing delay rationale (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. public policy in limitation (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. insufficient cause for appeal delay (Para 14 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. vigilance in litigating rights (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
Judgment :
CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA, J.
1. The present Civil First Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, district Bhilwara in Civil Original Case No.18/2012 (Chandra Prakash Vs. Shanker Lal & Ors.) whereby the suit preferred by the respondent-plaintiff for Specific Performance of the Contract and Permanent Injunction was decreed. Instant appeal is reported to be barred by 453 days. An application (Inward No.01/22) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of the delay in filing the instant Civil First Appeal.
2. The factual matrix, as it lies within a narrow compass, is that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant- defendant for specific performance of sale agreement dated 30.12.2011. The learned trial court after framing the issues and having heard learned counsel for the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 24.05.2016 decreed the suit in fa
The failure to provide adequate reasons for delay in filing an appeal results in dismissal, emphasizing the need for vigilance in litigation.
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 lack of diligence do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act.
The court condoned the 330-day delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural delays and acknowledging the appellants' lack of knowledge and proper le....
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
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 judgment emphasizes the importance of demonstrating 'sufficient cause' for delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act, and highlights the principle that inordinate delay should not be con....
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
