Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G.SATAPATHY
Kailash Panda – Appellant
Versus
Purna Khety – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. Satapathy, J.
IA No.379 of 2025 & MACA No.178 of 2025
1. This application in IA No.379 of 2025 by the appellant-petitioner U/S.5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 1142 days in preferring the appeal.
2. Heard, Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Mr. Rabindra Nath Debata, learned counsel appearing for R1 virtually and perused the record. None appears for R2/OP.2 despite valid service of notice of IA on him.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner, however, by placing the facts as stated in paragraph-4 of the IA No.379 of 2025 submits that since the impugned judgment was passed without the knowledge of the appellant-petitioner, he could not prefer the appeal in time and once he came to know about the passing of the impugned judgment, he has preferred this appeal and, therefore, there is no latches or negligence on the part of the appellant-petitioner, rather the appellant-petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. Mr. Mishra also alternatively submits that the Opposite Party can be compensated for the delay by imposing some cost on the appellant-petition
The court emphasizes that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the appellant, and mere assertions of negligence by counsel are insufficient to warrant condonation.
Litigants must demonstrate diligence in their appeals, as negligence or blame on counsel does not justify condonation of significant delays.
The court determined that internal miscommunication within the insurer does not justify a delay of over 300 days in filing an appeal, emphasizing statutory obligations to act with diligence.
The court emphasized a liberal approach in assessing sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly when the delay is marginal and does not prejudice th....
Litigants must exercise due diligence in legal proceedings; mere negligence of counsel does not justify condoning delays in filing appeals under the Limitation Act.
The court emphasized the importance of showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay and highlighted the need for a liberal but rational approach in such matters.
A delay in filing an appeal can be condoned based on a plausible explanation involving the appellant’s advanced age and health issues, highlighting the court's emphasis on substantive rights over tec....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing an Appeal, emphasizing the need for a ju....
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
