Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Sundaram (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Sadhasivam (Died) – Respondent
ORDER :
A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J.
The present revision petition has been filed by the legal heirs of the defendants 1 & 2, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Sulur, on 04.02.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.346 of 2007, refusing to condone the delay of 4714 days, in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 24.02.2010.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-
2.1. The suit in O.S.No.346 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff viz., Sadasivam, before the District Munsif Court, Palladam seeking partition as against st nd the defendants therein. The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the 1 and 2 defendants in the suit. Initially, the suit was dismissed for default on 12.06.2008 and thereafter, it was restored, in which, the defendants were set ex parte on 12.02.2010 and a preliminary decree came to be passed on 24.02.2010.
2.2. Thereafter, the plaintiff Sadasivam, filed an application for passing of final decree in the suit and in the interregnum, the original defendants 1 and 2 had filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. However, in the year 2012, due to bifurcation of the District, the suit came to be transferred to the
A litigant must show sufficient cause for delay in filing petitions; failure to do so justifies dismissal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The court emphasized that the sufficiency of the cause for delay, rather than its length, is the key criterion for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of advancing substantial justice over procedural law and the application of a liberal approach in considering the condonation of del....
Delay in filing applications must be supported by sufficient cause; courts should not condone delays lightly as it may prejudice the opposite party.
The sufficiency of the cause for delay is the primary criterion for condoning delay under the Limitation Act, not merely the length of 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 to advance substantial justice and remove injustice....
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
