Back
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Budh Pal – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Charan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. Introduction and Brief Facts
1.1 The petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the correctness of the order passed by the First Appellate Court refusing to condone the delay of 5 years 1 month and 3 days in filing the appeal
1.2 In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. Smt.Manju Lata was owner of plot No. 20 measuring 70 square yards. It is alleged that she entered into an agreement to sell with respect to the aforesaid plot in favour of Shiv Charan (respondent No.1 herein). On 15.02.2006, Shiv Charan filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in which Smt.Manju Lata was proceeded against ex parte on 2.04.2000. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 27.07.2011 while directing Shiv Charan to deposit the balance amount within a period of two months. In the execution proceedings, the sale deed in favour of Shiv Charan was executed and the warrants of possession were issued on 25.05.2015. The Bailiff came for the execution of the warrants of possession on the property in question on 15.07.2015. It is claimed by the petitioner
The court emphasized the importance of allowing a party to contest a case on merits, prioritizing justice over procedural delays in the context of the Limitation Act.
Failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in setting aside an ex parte decree results in dismissal of the application, emphasizing diligence and valid service of summons.
The court ruled that an ex parte decree is invalid if proper summons are not served, emphasizing the necessity of adjudication on merits.
The court affirmed that a delay in challenging a decree cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially when the application lacks an adequate explanation for prolonged inaction.
The sufficiency of cause for condoning extensive delay must be adequately demonstrated, with reliance on established legal precedents.
Courts must prioritize substantial justice over technical considerations and adopt a liberal view in deciding applications for limitation.
A separate application for condonation of delay is unnecessary if sufficient grounds are asserted within the application to justify the delay.
A party seeking condonation of delay must show sufficient cause; mere procedural deficiencies in prior judgments do not automatically justify 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
