Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Chameli Devi, W/o late Rupesh Singh – Respondent
Order
I.A. No. 6901 of 2016
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this interlocutory application which has been filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay of 394 days for restoration of civil miscellaneous petition being C.M.P. No. 381 of 2013 filed for restoration of M.A. No. 304 of 2009 which was dismissed for default due to non-prosecution.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay was not intentional and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 381/2013 was dismissed on 01.05.2015 because of non-appearance of counsel and after coming to his knowledge, the present civil miscellaneous petition for restoration is filed. 3. What is apparent from the submissions advanced and the materials on record is that Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed for default, for the restoration of it another Civil Miscellaneous Petition was filed, which was also dismissed for default, and the present Petition is for the restoration of C.M.P. No. 381 of 2013.
4. From the plain reading of the interlocutory application, it is evident that no cogent reason has been assigned for condoning the delay in filing the instant civil miscel
The absence of a valid reason for excessive delay in filing a restoration petition leads to rejection under the Limitation Act.
The court held that a satisfactory explanation for delay is essential for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and failure to provide such explanation results in dismissal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law of limitation is substantive, and exceptions for condoning delay should be exercised discreetly based on genuine and acceptable reason....
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 main legal point established is that condonation of delay is an exception to the law of limitation and should be exercised cautiously and uniformly, and that ignorance of law is not an excuse.
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
