Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
K. Vijayarangam (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Bajaj Promoters Pvt. Ltd – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 3110 days in filing the revision petition, challenging the order dated 30.10.2015 in I.A.No.16309 of 2013 in O.S.No.4801 of 2009, on the file of the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. I have heard Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Naveen,, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the contesting 1st respondent.
3. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the suit was filed against a widow and her daughters and an ex-parte decree came to be passed in April 2010 and an application under Section 5 to set aside the ex-parte decree was filed on 25.10.2013, with a delay of 1350 days in seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree. He would further submit that the husband of the 2nd defendant was bedridden and passed away. Even the wife was seriously ill and she was also not of sound mind throughout and she has been regularly taking treatment for her mental conditions as well. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the 2nd defendant filed the
The court ruled that a delay of 3110 days in filing a revision petition cannot be condoned due to the lack of sufficient cause, emphasizing adherence to procedural principles under the Limitation Act....
Insufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act leads to dismissal of the appeal.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
Point of law: applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) rule 105 or the opposite party against whom an order is passed ex-parte under sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-rule (1)....
Unexplained delay cannot be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant may not justify condoning the delay.
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
