Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
Ramsewak – Appellant
Versus
Ramsewak – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. explanation of delay in filing appeal. (Para 2 , 4) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard on I.A. No. 5504/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal.
3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for appellants.
5. It is fairly conceded that neither the date of death of local counsel is neither mentioned in the application, nor appellants are aware of the date of death of their local counsel. It is fairly conceded by counsel for appellants that even appellants did not appear before the Trial Court also.
7. Appellants are the residents of Gormi, District Bhind, whereas suit was also decided by District Judge, Bhind. Village - Gormi is hardly 35 km away from the district headquarters of District Bhind. Thus, appellants did not keep track of their case in spite of the fact that they were residing at a distance of only 35 km from the place where the trial was pending. Furthermore, nowadays, when the most advanced modes of conveyance are available, appellants could have enquired about the status of their case from their counsel on mobile phone, even that was not done. They could have checked the status of the suit on the website of the District Court, even that was no
The obligation of a litigant to remain informed about their case supersedes the negligence attributed to their counsel.
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.
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 emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
The court emphasized a liberal approach in assessing sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly when the delay is marginal and does not prejudice th....
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.
Litigants must exercise due diligence in legal proceedings; mere negligence of counsel does not justify condoning delays in filing appeals under the Limitation Act.
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
