Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
T. V. Venkatasamy Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
K. Ayyadurai – Respondent
Question 1? What is the standard of "sufficient cause" to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? Question 2? What factors guide judicial discretion in condoning long delays that prejudice the other party? Question 3? What are the consequences of condoning or not condoning a substantial delay in filing an appeal or revision?
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
ORDER (COMMON)
CMP No.2179 of 2023 is filed to condone the delay of 1781 days in filing the appeal suit against the judgment and decree passed in OS No.46 of 2014 dated 12.12.2018.
2. AS SR No.6826 of 2023 is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2018 made in OS No.46 of 2014 on the file of the District Judge Court No.II, Kancheepuram.
3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was instituted for recovery of money and based on the promissory note. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on 12.12.2018. However, the Appeal Suit against the decree has been instituted with the delay of 1781 days.
4. The reason stated by the petitioner is that the learned counsel, appearing for him before the Trial Court, failed to inform him about the decree passed by the Court on 12.12.2018. He informed about the decree only on 21.12.2021 and in the meanwhile, the decree-holder filed EP No.95 of 2019 on 09.04.2019.
5. It is not made clear whether the petitioner has received summons in the execution proceedings in the year 2019. While-so, the earlier statement made by the petitioner that
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
