Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G. S. Ahluwalia
Kailash Narayan Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar Joshi – Respondent
ORDER :
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Heard on IA. No.6452/2021 an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC for substitution of legal representatives of sole appellant Kailash Narayan Joshi.
2. IA. No.5810/2025 has been filed under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC and IA.No.5809/2025 has been filed under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT .
IA.No.5809/2025
3. It is mentioned in the application that appellant Kailash Narayan Joshi had expired on 26.07.2019. The proposed legal representatives of Kailash Narayan Joshi had no idea about the pendency of this appeal and they came to know for the first time only when on 21.10.2021 an information was given by counsel for respondent about the death of appellant-Kailash Narayan Joshi and accordingly, an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was filed on 16.11.2021. It is not out of place to mention here that application under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC and application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT were filed on 30.07.2025.
4. Be that whatever it may be.
5. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the proposed legal representatives of sole appellant Kailash Narayan Joshi have made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in setting aside abatement or no
Litigants must maintain diligence about their cases; blaming counsel for delays does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning such delays under the Limitation Act.
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.
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 court emphasized strict adherence to the Limitation Act, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient cause for delay in filing.
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 ruled that mere negligence and inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal.
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....
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
