Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Limitation as a Primary Issue: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia has frequently addressed limitation as a critical issue in various cases, emphasizing its significance in judicial proceedings. For example, in ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Supreme Court SWATI JINDAL vs PRATYUSH PRABEER MOHAPATRA - Supreme Court
Limitation Periods and Their Exceptions: Justice Dhulia has acknowledged statutory provisions and judicial directions that modify or extend limitation periods. For instance, in THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. vs KUMAR RAJAN R.P. - Supreme Court
Legal and Factual Nature of Limitation: In ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Supreme Court
Limitation in Arbitration and Civil Cases: Justice Dhulia has stressed the importance of adhering to limitation periods in arbitration and civil suits, dismissing petitions when claims are filed beyond the statutory period, as seen in 2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 14695 and 2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 5532.
Judicial Directions and Exemptions: He has also considered judicial directions, such as in INDSC00000025763_2023, where the limitation period was extended due to specific orders, reflecting the Court's role in mitigating harsh effects of strict limitation rules under exceptional circumstances.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia's approach to limitation reflects a balanced judicial perspective—upholding the importance of statutory time limits while recognizing circumstances warranting extension or exemption. His rulings consistently emphasize that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, often necessitating trial court determination, and that procedural flexibility can be granted in appropriate cases, especially where judicial directions or equitable considerations apply.
References:- SWATI JINDAL vs PRATYUSH PRABEER MOHAPATRA - Supreme Court ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Supreme Court KAMARAJ vs MADHAIYAN - Supreme Court THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. vs KUMAR RAJAN R.P. - Supreme Court
Overall, Justice Dhulia advocates for adherence to limitation statutes but remains open to judicial discretion and directions that serve substantive justice.
In the realm of Indian civil procedure, time limits can be unforgiving, but , offers a vital lifeline. Often queried in legal circles as Sudhansu Dhulia Section 5 Limitation, this provision allows courts to condone delays in filing appeals or applications upon showing . Justice Sudhansu Dhulia, a prominent judge, has shaped its application through pragmatic rulings that balance strict timelines with the pursuit of substantial justice. This post delves into the provision's essentials, judicial interpretations—especially Dhulia's contributions—and practical guidance, drawing from landmark cases.
Note: This article provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Section 5 empowers courts to extend the prescribed limitation period for appeals or applications if the applicant demonstrates for the delay. It states that courts may admit such filings after the prescribed period, if it is satisfied that the appellant or the applicant had for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
The provision underscores , particularly when a meritorious case exists without . As noted, allows for the extension of the prescribed period for filing appeals or applications if the applicant can demonstrate for the delay
2016 0 Supreme(Kar) 252. This flexibility prevents technicalities from derailing justice.
The has interpreted liberally, condoning delays absent negligence or bad faith. Courts must distinguish inordinate delays from shorter ones, favoring leniency in the latter. The has consistently interpreted in a liberal manner, allowing for the condonation of delays unless there is clear evidence of negligence or bad faith 2000 0 Supreme(Del) 43 2002 0 Supreme(AP) 228.
Justice Sudhansu Dhulia exemplifies this approach. In multiple rulings, he has addressed limitation as a pivotal issue, often as a requiring scrutiny. For instance, in a case before him, One of the main grounds was that this case is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation. 4. The Courts have held and, in our view rightly so, that this is a , which has to be decided by the . 5. 2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 5532. Dhulia has also condoned delays under Section 5, as in For the reasons stated in the application under section 5 of the Limitation At duly supported by affidavit, delay of 65 days is condoned 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 7103.
His judgments highlight exceptions during extraordinary periods, such as COVID-19 extensions: would have expired during the period between and notwithstanding the actual period of limitation all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days
. In arbitration contexts, he has extended limits under Section 5 alongside provisions like
.
When seeking condonation, applicants typically focus on these factors:
2016 0 Supreme(Kar) 252.
Justice Dhulia's rulings reinforce these. In one, he dismissed time-barred suits , noting, The date of filing the action being in the year 2018 the same was thus and as such the application could not have been admitted
. Yet, he affirmed flexibility: Considering all these aspects, even on limitation the suit was liable to be dismissed was the finding of the as the suit itself was filed after 10 years 2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 5082.
Several precedents guide Section 5 applications, with Dhulia's involvement adding contemporary depth:
.
Dhulia's cases extend this legacy. In procedural matters, he addressed Section 5 alongside court sections, as in records from Court No. 5 2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 12899. He has also linked it to arbitration under Section 34, emphasizing timely filings post-orders
SUREN MAHTO Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND And ORS. - Jharkhand
. Other insights include objections filed within time not needing Section 5 rigor: Therefore, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and rigours of law of Limitation will not be applicable 2009 0 Supreme(Del) 292.Dhulia frequently treats limitation as central, dismissing barred claims while allowing extensions judiciously. Key themes from his bench:
.
.
His balanced view upholds statutes but permits discretion for equity, as in condoning 65-day delays 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 7103.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, illuminated by Justice Sudhansu Dhulia's nuanced judgments, promotes justice by condoning . While timelines remain sacred, courts—per Dhulia—lean toward liberality when merit shines through. Litigants should prioritize diligence, as inordinate negligence invites rejection.
Key Takeaways:- is elastic for justice's sake
.- Shorter delays get leniency; prove no 2000 0 Supreme(Del) 43.- Dhulia emphasizes trial-level facts and equitable extensions 2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 7103.
References:
2000 0 Supreme(Del) 43 2002 0 Supreme(AP) 228 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 488 2016 0 Supreme(Kar) 252
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 7103
#Section5Limitation, #JusticeDhulia, #LimitationAct
JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhansu Palo, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Jitender Kumar Mohapatra, Adv. ... [SUDHANSHU DHULIA] NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 13, 2022. ... Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2022.12.20 15:40:40 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.12 SECTION
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL ... JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V VISWANATHAN (VACATION BENCH) For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Bahl, Adv. ... Sudhansu Palo, AOR For Respondent(s) ....
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA) New Delhi, July 21, 2022. ... Priyadarshini Dewan, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has confined her submissions with regard to only one issue namely, that of limitation. ... The date of filing the action being in the year 2018 the same was thus ex facie beyond limitation and as such the application could not have been admitted. ... JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pr....
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA) NEW DELHI AUGUST 23, 2022 6 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C ... it is hereby ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 shall be 5 and Ms. Vriti Gujral, learned counsel, who were requested to act as ....
One of the main grounds was that this case is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation. 4. The Courts have held and, in our view rightly so, that this is a mixed question of law and fact, which has to be decided by the Trial Court. 5. ... [SUDHANSHU DHULIA] ……………………………………………………………………….J. [PRASANNA B. VARALE] NEW DELHI; JANUARY 29, 2024. ... Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2024.02.06 10:36:09 IST Reason: Signature No....
would have expired during the period between 15.03.2021 and 28.02.2022 notwithstanding the actual period of limitation all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days ... 1 ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD ... JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA For Appellant(s) Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR ....
For the reasons stated in the application under section 5 of the Limitation At duly supported by affidavit, delay of 65 days is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. ... 5. ... [SUDHANSHU DHULIA] ...................J. [ARAVIND KUMAR] New Delhi; July 24, 2025. ... JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR For Appellant(s) Mr.....
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL ... JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aravindh, S, Adv. Mr. R.suriyanarayanan, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Special Leave Pet....
She further submits that after the order passed in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 (g) (5) of Act, 1956 the remedy is available by invoking the jurisdiction as conferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act ... Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the Respondent-NHAI: Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate : Mr. ... Sweety Topno, learned counsel for the respondent-N.H.A.I. submits by refer....
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA] …………………………………………………………………………J. ... Considering all these aspects, even on limitation the suit was liable to be dismissed was the finding of the High Court as the suit itself was filed after 10 years. We agree with the findings of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ... [PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE] NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 26, 2024 ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.17 SECTION IV-B S U P R E ....
3. The learned ADJ in the impugned order extensively quoted the judgments relied upon by both the parties and then observed that the application under Section 5 made by the petitioners show that they did not wish to file a separate appeal and they relied upon the appeals filed by their objectors against the same order, although they had not joined them in the appeal. Act the petitioners had taken a plea that the co-sharers i.e. the other two objectors (who had preferred an appeal within time) ....
Therefore, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation This leads me to consider the case in hand wherein the objections were filed within the prescribed period of time and the same did not suffer from any discrepancy/infirmity of vital nature. Precisely, it means that while seeing the condition of delay in re-filing, the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act and rigours of law of Limitation will not be applicable. Therefore, the provisions of Section 5 of the....
7. Irrespective of the fact that Section 5 Limitation Act is not applicable, to suit, as far as the law of limitation is concerned, if a matter, on the own showing of the party filling the matter in the court, is time-barred, a right accrues in favour of the opposite party in that matter in having that matter dismissed as time-barred and, therefore, if such a matter is accompanied by an application for condonation of the delay, because of the fact that a right has already acc....
7. Irrespective of the fact that Section 5 Limitation Act is not applicable, to suit, as far as the law of limitation is con cerned, if a matter, on the own showing of the party filing the matter in the court, is time-barred, a right accrues in favour of the opposite party in that matter in having that matter dismissed as time-barred and, therefore, if such a matter is accompanied by an application for condonation of the delay, because of the fact that a right has already acc....
Thereafter an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Learned Rent Controller vide the impugned order has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently application for leave to defend the Eviction Petition. It was not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay. Act came to be filed seeking condonation of delay of one day in filing the application for leave to defend.
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
