Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Padasaib, (Died), Saroja Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Saraswathi, (Died), Kaliyamurthy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and execution petition (Para 1 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments on applicability of section 5 of limitation act (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis on handling of the execution petition and delay (Para 6 , 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. ratio decidendi on limitation provisions and execution petition restoration (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion of the court's ruling (Para 17) |
ORDER :
P.B.BALAJI, J.
This revision has been filed challenging the order passed in E.A.No.37 of 2022 dated 04.02.2025 in E.P.No.44 of 2002, in and whereby the delay of 573 days in filing the application to restore E.P.No.44 of 2002, has been allowed on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the respondents, that is the revision petitioners.
2. I have heard Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.T.M.Naveen, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the executing Court did not have the power to exercise, in the first place, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as admittedly the order was passed beyond the period of 30 days, which alone can be condoned under relevant provisions of Order XXI of CPC.
Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are typically inapplicable to proceedings under Order XXI of CPC unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
The Limitation Act applies to execution proceedings, and a party can seek to condone delay in filing applications related to such proceedings.
A court must condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before considering applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to ensure jurisdictional compliance.
Power to condone the delay, but whether delay should be condoned or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
The rejection of applications for condonation of delay in filing petitions under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC leads to the dismissal of the main petitions, making them appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(d....
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
