Back
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI
Tenzing Kelsang Kalden – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing delay and substitution of party (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding delay and representation issues (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of grounds for condonation of delay (Para 6 , 8 , 12 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. 'sufficient cause' for delay interpretation (Para 9 , 11 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. decision to condone the delay and proceed with cross objection (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Cross Objector/Petitioner herein has filed the instant application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 1946 days in filing the present Cross Objection. The Petitioner was substituted vide Order of this Court dated 08-12-2021 as the legal representative of his deceased father, Rinzing Dadul Kalden who was the original Respondent No.3 in RFA No.15 of 2016,.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner enumerating the grounds for the delay in filing the Cross Objection contended that initially I.A. No.01 of 2022 was filed wherein the delay was computed as 99 days' and withdrawn on the realisation that the original Respondent No.3 had been served with Notice on 10-11- 2006, following which the delay was computed as 1946 days' and the instant I.A. bei
Delay in filing a Cross Objection can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the applicant provides sufficient cause demonstrating bona fide reasons for the delay.
The court ruled that mere negligence and inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal.
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....
Point of law: applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) rule 105 or the opposite party against whom an order is passed ex-parte under sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-rule (1)....
The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay should be decided on merits, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, especially when the delay is not due to negligence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
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
