Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SUSHIL KUKREJA
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Chander Shekhar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, J.
This order shall dispose of an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of seven years, three months and thirteen days in filing the present appeal. As per the applicant, delay in filing the appeal has occurred, as he was not aware about any proceedings against him in any Court due to the reason that his wife was suffering from cancer and for her better treatment, the applicant used to remain out of station. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal in neither intentional nor willful, but was beyond the control of the applicant, as such, the same deserves to be condoned.
2. Reply to the application has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5/Insurance Company, wherein, it has been submitted that the applicant was proceeded against ex parte before the learned Tribunal below, as despite valid and effective service, he did not file and reply. It has been further submitted that the applicant has not appended any documents in order to show that his wife was suffering from cancer and has not appended any document showing the period during which she remained under treatment. Further, the applicant was aware of the acciden
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....
Inordinate delay of nearly two years not condoned due to lack of day-to-day explanation; natural disasters and administrative delays insufficient without proving diligence and bona fides, even for go....
The court ruled that mere negligence and inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal.
The court emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigours when the statute prescribes, and the court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
The court held that the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally to ensure substantial justice, especially when the delay is influenced....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of showing sufficient cause for condoning delay and the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to ensure substantial justice.
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
