Back
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER
Sujan Singh Bundela – Appellant
Versus
Kripal Singh Yadav – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal which was filed in the year 2004.
2. There is huge delay of 2 years and 93 days. The matter has remained pending before this Court for 19 years without steps being taken. Today also, none is present for the appellants.
3. Reasons for the delay as explained in the affidavit attached to this application reads as under :
3. That the appellants were not a party in the case. Pooran Singh Bundela was a party and proceedings was in the in the knowledge of the appellants.
4. That when the Collection Officials were directed to recover the amount from the appellants, then the appellants came to know about the proceedings.
5. That after obtaining the Certified Copy of the Judgment and Decree, the appellants fell ill and they could not direct the deponent to contact the counsel for filing of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a bona fide explanation for delay in filing an appeal, as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Government bodies must provide reasonable explanations for delays in filing appeals, as the law of limitation applies equally to all litigants, including the State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a bona fide explanation for delay in filing a revision, as interpreted under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The court emphasized the importance of showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay and highlighted the need for a liberal but rational approach in such matters.
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
