Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Mohd.Anwar Khan – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumar – Respondent
Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 144 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2023
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - The court allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of a 26-day delay in filing the case.
Fact of the Case:
The court allowed an application for condonation of delay and restoration of a dismissed review petition due to non-compliance with a peremptory order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioner, allowing the application for restoration of the review petition in the interest of justice.
Issues: Non-compliance with peremptory order, restoration of review petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to allow the application for condonation of delay and restoration of the review petition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for restoration of the review petition and directed the office to list the same accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Subodh Abhyankar, J. - For the reasons assigned in the application, IA No.512/2023, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay is hereby allowed; and the delay of 26 (twenty six) days delay in filing the present case is hereby condoned.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. This application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner (s) for restoration of Review Petition No.833/2022, which was dismissed on 28.11.2022 by the Registry of this Court on account of non compliance of peremptory order dated 12.10.2022, whereby the petitioner (s) was directed to remove the defect (s) within a period of six weeks' time.
4. On perusal of the memo as well as the dismissal order of Review Petition on account of non compliance of the peremptory order and for the reasons assigned in the case, which is supported with the affidavit of the petitioner, in the interest of justice, Miscellaneous Civil Case No.144/2023 is allowed.
5. Consequently, Review Petition No.833/2022 is restored to its original number. Office is directed to list the same accordingly.
AI
The court has the discretion to condone delay and restore a dismissed petition in the interest of justice, as provided under the relevant legal provisions.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory principles of limitation and held that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient and credible explanations, citing previous decisions to....
The Court determines the insufficiency of arguments under the Limitation Act for reviewing a prior dismissal.
The court emphasized that litigants owe a duty to track their cases vigilantly and cannot solely blame their lawyers for delays when seeking to condone significant time lapses.
Courts may refuse to condone delay in filing a Review Petition if the explanation offered for seeking condonation of delay is found unsatisfactory.
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
