Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN
Devarakonda Shankara Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Are Pathi Subhashini – Respondent
ORDER :
(K. LAKSHMAN, J.)
Heard Mr. Tangeda Dayananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner - Judgment Debtor No.2 and Mrs. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Decree Holder. Despite service of notice on respondent Nos.2 and 3 - Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 3, there is no representation on their behalf.
2. The petitioner herein filed the present revision challenging the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad (for short ‘Executing Court’) in E.A. No.44 of 2021 in E.P. No.14 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the trial Court condoned delay of 1374 days in filing an application for setting aside the dismissal order dated 17.04.2017 and to restore the EP to its original number.
3. The petitioner herein is arrayed as judgment debtor No.2, while respondent Nos.2 and 3 are judgment debtor Nos.1 and 3 and respondent No.1 is decree-holder in E.P. No.14 of 2014. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in E.P.
4. Respondent No.1 - Decree Holder filed a suit vide O.S. No.123 of 2005 for recovery of Rs.1.00 lakh along with interest @ 12% per annum thereon
The Limitation Act applies to execution proceedings, and a party can seek to condone delay in filing applications related to such proceedings.
Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are typically inapplicable to proceedings under Order XXI of CPC unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
The court emphasized that the sufficiency of the cause for delay, rather than its length, is the key criterion for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Point of law: applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) rule 105 or the opposite party against whom an order is passed ex-parte under sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-rule (1)....
Power to condone the delay, but whether delay should be condoned or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice and remove injustice....
The applicability of Article 136 of the Limitation Act supersedes Article 137 for final decree applications, allowing exclusion of prior litigation periods in calculating limitation.
The court established that the limitation for appeal is calculated from the original judgment date unless a valid correction alters the operative decree, and a liberal approach in condoning delays is....
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
