Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Prem Singh – Appellant
Versus
Indira Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018
Applicant-Prem Singh has filed these applications for restoration of his Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012, after condoning the delay in moving the application.
2. OMP No. 204 of 2018 has been filed for restoration of the Civil Suit, under Order 9 Rules 9 & 4, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas OMP(M) No. 17 of 2018 has been filed under the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in moving the application for restoration.
3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the above two applications, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:-
3.1 Applicant-Prem Singh and two others have filed the Civil Suit No. 104 of 2012 for Specific Performance, against the respondents. The said suit was dismissed in default on 24.08.2017. On that day, this Court had passed the following order:-
“Court notices issued to the plaintiffs are reported to be served upon them, however, they neither put in appearance in person nor the counsel appearing for them under a Vakalatnama holds any instructions from them in respect of their meting compliance with the orders recorded by this Court on 16.11.2016, th
The failure to provide sufficient cause to justify the delay in filing a restoration application results in the dismissal of such application, upholding the defendants' accrued rights.
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
Litigants are not penalized for their Advocate's negligence; restoration of a suit can be granted based on demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' and a pragmatic approach to advance substantial justice in applications for condonation o....
The court emphasized a pragmatic approach to justice, stating that delay should be liberally construed under the Limitation Act, and parties should not be penalized for their counsel's non-appearance....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in condoning delay and restoring suits to file, emphasizing the importance of deciding cases on merits rather than ....
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.
The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant may not justify condoning the delay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the exercise of discretion to advance su....
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
