Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
V.K.GUPTA
Neelam Kumari – Appellant
Versus
U. P. Financial Corporation – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of today at the motion hearing stage.
2. It is a very peculiar case, where the respondent/plaintiff, by itself and through its counsel, as well as the learned Court below have exhibited and demonstrated their total ignorance of law as far as the applicability of Section 5 Limitation Act is concerned. Actually, the learned Court below has gone a step further by not only wrongly applying Section 5, but also allowing the plaintiff's prayer for condonation of the delay without issuing any notice to the defendants in the suit.
3. The respondent is a Financial Corporation under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. It filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioners herein for setting aside a sale deed executed on 29th December, 1993 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from selling, transferring etc. the property in question. The suit was filed in the month of March, 200
The court emphasized that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits and highlighted the impermissibility of condoning delay without notice to the opposite party.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit challenging a sale deed must be filed within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, and suppression of material facts ....
The court reinforced that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the appellant, and ignorance of a judgment is insufficient for condonation.
The court clarified that knowledge of encroachment does not imply knowledge of a sale deed, impacting the limitation period for filing a suit.
The presumption of validity of registered documents requires specific fraud allegations to extend the limitation period, which were absent in this case, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration must be filed within the period of limitation as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, and failure to do so will result....
The question of limitation in civil suits is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence to determine the plaintiff's knowledge of essential facts.
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
Listen Article