Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G. S. AHLUWALIA
Mahendra Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Ram Kuvar W/o Late Shri Gaya Prasad Thr. Ram Niwas – Respondent
ORDER :
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.
This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been filed for recall of order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in M.A. No. 391/2007.
2. The Hon'ble Judge who had passed the order under review has demitted his office; therefore, this Review Petition has been listed before this Court.
3. I.A. No. 3557/2017, an application for condonation of delay has been filed.
4. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that, against the same award, the claimants had filed M.A. No. 391/2007, whereas the applicant, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, had filed M.A. No. 1175/2009. M.A. No. 1175/2009 is still pending, but by order dated 31.01.2013 M.A. No. 391/2007 was finally decided, and it was observed that the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal with regard to the liability shall remain intact. It is submitted that although the applicant had engaged counsel but he did not appear when M.A. No. 391/2007 was called; therefore, the aforesaid appeal was heard and decided without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
5. It is further submitted that once two appeals are pending against the same award, then both the appeals s
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 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 obligation of a litigant to remain informed about their case supersedes the negligence attributed to their counsel.
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 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 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.
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
