Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Lakshmi, (died) – Appellant
Versus
T. Radhakrishnan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in filing appeal. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments for condonation based on rights. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. counterarguments against condonation based on delay. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. observations on importance of sufficient cause for delay. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. evaluating facts related to delay justification. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. judgment on petition dismissal. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
P.B.BALAJI, J.
The above civil miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking condonation of a delay of 2366 days in preferring the First Appeal against the decree in OS.No.6 of 2008. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit, who are claiming a relief of partition.
2. I have heard Mr. Nityaesh Natraj for Mr. Anirudh A. Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the contesting 1st respondent. I have also gone through the records including the typed set of papers, besides also the decisions that has been relied on by the learned counsels on either side.
3. Mr. Nityaesh Natraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, while fairly conceding that the delay is certainly long, being 2366 days, would however state that the valuable rights of the p
The Court emphasized that mere allegations against counsel do not suffice as adequate explanation for a lengthy delay in filing appeals; adherence to statute of limitations is critical.
The court held that the appellants' explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactory and that they were aware of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, as evidenced ....
Insufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act leads to dismissal of the appeal.
Delay in filing appeals must be adequately justified, particularly by State parties; mere public interest claims do not absolve responsibility for substantial delays.
The court held that sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay under the Limitation Act, and mere negligence of legal counsel does not qualify as such.
The court emphasized that a request for condoning a delay must be supported by credible evidence, reiterating strict adherence to limitation laws and principles of public policy that discourage undue....
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
