Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL
Surinder Pal alias Chinda – Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS BAHL, J.
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Ludhiana, vide which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application has been dismissed.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell on 29.08.1998 with respect to an alleged agreement to sell dated 28.05.1996. It is submitted that the petitioner was in jail from 30.04.1996 till 20.09.1996 in case FIR no.42 dated 28.04.1996 under Section 18, 16, 85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Phillaur and was released on 20.09.1996 and thus could not have executed agreement to sell dated 28.05.1996 and has referred to certificate dated 28.05.1999 which has been annexed as Annexure P-6. It is argued that the said suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment dated 02.02.2008 and the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC when h
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot be deprived of justice on technical grounds, and the court can exercise discretion to condone delay in the absence of a formal ....
The court established that a formal application for condonation of delay is not mandatory under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing for discretion in restoring applications.
Order IX Rule 7 CPC applications to set aside ex parte not subject to limitation; fresh filing permissible in ongoing suits.
The court emphasized that litigants owe a duty to track their cases vigilantly and cannot solely blame their lawyers for delays when seeking to condone significant time lapses.
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 court reinforced that an excessive delay in seeking restoration of a suit cannot be condoned based on vague explanations, as it undermines the principles of the law of limitation.
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
