Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Madan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Parul Kapil – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 23.04.2019, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. (Annexure P-3), in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 9, Rule 4 read with Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code was allowed by the learned Trial Court.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a civil suit was filed by the respondents and their mother, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The contesting respondents herein were the minor plaintiffs in the said civil suit. An application was filed for restoration of the civil suit by Ms. Parul Kapil and Master Sahil Kapil, through Ms. Parul Kapil, praying for the restoration of the suit by setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 11.06.2010. It was mentioned in the application that in the said civil suit, which was a suit for specific performance of contract, they were being represented through their mother as their next friend, however, as their interest was not protected by their mother who was careless in execution of the suit, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.06.2010. It was
The court emphasized that restoration of a suit requires due consideration of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, especially when minors are involved, highlighting procedural fairness.
Courts must grant opportunity to file condonation application under Section 5 Limitation Act for short delays in restoration of suits dismissed in default, avoiding hyper-technical dismissals to prio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot be deprived of justice on technical grounds, and the court can exercise discretion to condone delay in the absence of a formal ....
The court established that a formal application for condonation of delay is not mandatory under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing for discretion in restoring applications.
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 ....
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 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.
The court emphasized that litigants owe a duty to track their cases vigilantly and cannot solely blame their lawyers for delays when seeking to condone significant time lapses.
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
