Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Lakshmi, (died) – Appellant
Versus
T. Radhakrishnan – Respondent
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 plaintiffs in immovable property should not be deprived or denied and the delay ought to be condoned. He would further state that the entire period of delay has been properly explained in the affidavit in support of the application. In this regard, he would take me through paragraph Nos.15 to 20 of the affidavit in the above CMP. The learned counsel would also forward a copy of the Encumbrance Cert
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....
The court emphasized the need for a reasonable explanation for delay in presenting an appeal and highlighted the importance of adhering to the substantive law of limitation.
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
