Back
G. S. AHLUWALIA
Hardeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mayorsingh @ Neyar Singh – Respondent
ORDER
1. This civil revision under section 115 of C.P.C. has been filed against order dated 26.7.2019 passed .by Seventh Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in MJC No.26/2018 by which an application filed by respondents No.1 and 2 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been allowed and the delay has been condoned.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had filed a suit and respondents No.1 and 2 did not appear in the said suit. The suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Since, respondents No.1 and 2 were avoiding the service of notice, therefore, they were served by a substituted mode of service by publication. Even thereafter respondents No.1 and 2 did not appear and accordingly, an ex-parte decree was passed. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 rule 13 of C.P.C. alongwith under section 5 of Limitation Act was filed, which was dismissed by the trial Court.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondents No.1 and 2 filed an appeal alongwith an application under section 5 of Limitation Act. In the appeal a stand was taken that since, their lawyer had not communicated the result/fate of application, therefore, they cou
Litigants must actively track their cases; reliance on counsel cannot excuse substantial delays in filing appeals. Courts exercise discretion in condoning delays based on the sufficiency of cause pro....
The court must exercise caution in condoning delays; a litigant's failure to pursue their case diligently, regardless of counsel's actions, does not constitute sufficient cause for delay.
The obligation of a litigant to remain informed about their case supersedes the negligence attributed to their counsel.
The sufficiency of cause is essential for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; mere negligence of counsel is insufficient without evidence of diligence from the litigant.
The court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
Litigants must maintain diligence about their cases; blaming counsel for delays does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning such delays under the Limitation Act.
The court reiterated that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal lies with the appellant, and mere ignorance or reliance on counsel is insufficient.
Unexplained delay cannot be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
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
