Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G. S. Ahluwalia
Vijay Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gyaso – Respondent
ORDER :
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 30/11/2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in MJC No.27/2010 by which application filed under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay in filing the civil appeal has been rejected and as a consequence thereof, the appeal was also dismissed as barred by time.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title as well as for declaration of sale-deed and the orders passed by Revenue Court as null and void as well as also for mesne profit and permanent injunction. The appellant appeared in the said appeal, filed his written statement and also participated in the suit proceedings. Ultimately, by judgment and decree dated 23/07/2001 the trial Court decreed the suit.
3. Thereafter, the appellant filed a regular civil appeal under Section 96 of CPC on 03/02/2010 i.e. after 8 years and 7 months of the judgment and decree which was passed against him. He also filed an application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT pleading interalia that after his evid
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 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 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.
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 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.
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
