Back
DINESH PATHAK
Rakesh Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Zulfkar Ali – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Virendra Singh, Ms. Neha Khan and Sri Jitendra Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the sole respondent and perused the record.
2. The appellant has preferred instant First Appeal From Order assailing the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Muzaffar Nagar rejecting the restoration application moved by him under Order 9 Rule 13 read with 151 C.P.C., registered as Misc. Case No.17 of 2011, against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 13.11.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Muzaffar Nagar in Original Suit No. 684 of 2008 (Zulfkar Ali Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain).
3. Facts culled out from the record are that Zulfkar Ali (plaintiff-respondent) has filed suit dated 14.7.2008 for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant-appellant to restrain him not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property in question shown by letters ABC at the foot of the plaint and also not to dismantle the construction exists over there. The plaintiff came with the case that to
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Point of law: Once court accepts explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisiiona....
The condonation of delay in restoring a civil suit for specific performance must be based on sufficient cause, and an exorbitant and inordinate delay without such cause can lead to the quashing of th....
The court emphasized that delay in filing a restoration application undermines the right to challenge prior orders, reinforcing the principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied.
A formal application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act is not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown, allowing courts to exercise discretion in restoring cases.
The court reaffirmed that substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure does not constitute adequate service, necessitating substantiation of claims in applications for condonation of delay.
Litigants are not penalized for their Advocate's negligence; restoration of a suit can be granted based on demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance.
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
