Back
RAJNISH KUMAR
Narendra Bahadur – Appellant
Versus
District Judge-Lakhimpur Khiri – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and execution proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the condonation of delay. (Para 3 , 4 , 7) |
| 3. supreme court precedent on explanatory delays. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. decision not to remit due to lack of sufficient explanation. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final order set-asiding previous judgments. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Kumar, J.
Heard Shri R.R. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are the court concerned.
2. This Court had passed the following order on 06.12.2023, recording the arguments of learned counsel for the parties:-
The court affirmed that a delay in challenging a decree cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially when the application lacks an adequate explanation for prolonged inaction.
Deliberate delay to scuttle a legal process should be heavily penalized, and legal representatives cannot seek to set aside a decree accepted by the original defendants.
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....
Failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in setting aside an ex parte decree results in dismissal of the application, emphasizing diligence and valid service of summons.
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
