Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP PANNU
Ishpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Madan Mohan (Since Deceased) through LRs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANDEEP PANNU J.
1. The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in CM No. 774 of 10.11.2023, later converted into Civil Appeal No. 635 of 2025, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1/defendant No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was allowed and the appeal was entertained.
2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the judgment and decree were passed on 09.12.2022 by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed. In the memo of parties and in the decree sheet, the trial Court omitted to mention the legal representatives of defendants No. 2 to 4. Consequently, the legal representative of defendant No. 2, namely Pardeep Sharma, filed an application for correction under Section 152 CPC on 31.01.2023, which was allowed on 17.07.2023.
3. The petitioner/plaintiff thereafter filed an execution petition on 18.04.2024. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1, through his legal representatives, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2022 on 10.11.2023. Thus, there was a delay of aro
The court established that the limitation for appeal is calculated from the original judgment date unless a valid correction alters the operative decree, and a liberal approach in condoning delays is....
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
The court ruled that mere negligence and lack of diligence do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act.
The court held that the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally to ensure substantial justice, especially when the delay is influenced....
The court reiterated that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal lies with the appellant, and mere ignorance or reliance on counsel is insufficient.
The court reaffirmed that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay is essential to ensure substantial justice, allowing a non-pedantic approach to procedural matters.
The court emphasized that ignorance of a court order due to counsel's negligence does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
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
