Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Gurdial Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. decree requires court fee deposit within 30 days. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. bona fide delay from pilgrimage and illness. (Para 2) |
| 3. no interference with trial court order. (Para 3 , 9) |
| 4. unsubstantiated claims lack documentary proof. (Para 5) |
| 5. extension only if no negligence proven. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. further delay shows continued negligence. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 10.02.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, District Una, H.P, in terms whereof, application filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking extension of time for depositing the court fee which was required to be deposited in terms of decree passed on 09.11.2023, in a suit for specific performance stands dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Court below has erred in rejecting the application by not appreciating that as there was a decree passed in favour of the petitioner and as delay in depositing the court fee was bona fide and not intentional, the application deserved to be allowed. He has taken the Court through the contents of the application and submitted that the delay in deposition of t
Extension of time to deposit deficient court fee in specific performance decree demands documentary proof of bona fide delay and no negligence; unsubstantiated claims and repeated delays justify dism....
Point of Law : Section 28 of Specific Relief Act 1963 says “such further period as Court may allow” thereby empowering Courts to extend period for deposit of amount specified - However, there cannot ....
Courts possess discretion under CPC and the Specific Relief Act to extend deadlines for contract performance, reflecting on claimants' willingness and circumstances surrounding payment delays.
The provisions of Section 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure are intended to apply to cases of bona fide mistakes and not where a party consciously and intentionally avoided putting in defici....
Court upheld the dismissal of a petition for additional evidence in a specific performance case, ruling it irrelevant to deposit time requirements.
The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delays in appeals, balancing justice with the rights of parties involved.
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
