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…!
Applicability of Section 5: Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to restoration applications, especially when the prescribed limitation period has lapsed but the applicant seeks condonation for delay. Courts have held that Section 5 allows for the condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown Dinesh Thakur Alias Dineshwar Thakur VS Amitabh Thakur - Patna, Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd. , Kribhco Surat Gujarat VS Union of India, Thru G. M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur - Allahabad, Krishna Kisku VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Chameli Devi, W/o late Rupesh Singh - Jharkhand, Lakhindra Mahto, Son of Late Meghnath Mahto vs Pachi Devi, Wife of Late Jhalku Mahto - Jharkhand.
No Limitation Prescribed for Certain Restoration Applications: In some cases, such as applications for restoration of miscellaneous cases or applications related to default dismissals, there is no specific limitation period prescribed under the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Courts have observed that such applications are maintainable within a reasonable time and that the absence of a prescribed limitation period does not mean they are immune from delay considerations Dinesh Thakur Alias Dineshwar Thakur VS Amitabh Thakur - Patna.
Condonation of Delay: Courts have emphasized that delay caused by genuine reasons can be condoned under Section 5, provided the party demonstrates sufficient cause. However, negligence or lack of bona fide reasons are not acceptable grounds for condoning delay Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd. , Kribhco Surat Gujarat VS Union of India, Thru G. M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur - Allahabad, Krishna Kisku VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Chameli Devi, W/o late Rupesh Singh - Jharkhand, Uma Shankar VS Dy. Director Of Consolidation - Allahabad.
Judicial View on Long Delays: The Supreme Court and other courts have noted that extremely delayed restoration petitions (sometimes spanning decades) are often barred by limitation unless exceptional circumstances justify the delay. For instance, applications filed after 30 or 40 years have been rejected as barred by limitation Krishna Kisku VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, A. Ramji Yadav VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand.
Special Provisions and Exceptions: In certain statutes like the PTCL Act or land restoration under specific land laws, courts have considered whether the limitation period applies or whether the delay can be condoned. The courts have generally held that if the statute does not explicitly bar the application, then Section 5 can be invoked to condone delay SMT. PREMAKUMARI vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - Karnataka, A. Ramji Yadav VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand.
Impact of Court Orders and Supreme Court Guidelines: The Supreme Court's directions during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the extension of limitation periods during specific intervals, have been incorporated into the consideration of delay in restoration petitions Naval Singh VS Commissioner Rohtak - Punjab and Haryana.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act plays a crucial role in restoration petitions by providing a mechanism to condone delays caused by genuine reasons. While some applications may not have a specific limitation period, courts remain cautious about extremely delayed petitions, often requiring demonstration of sufficient cause. The courts balance the principles of justice with the need to prevent abuse of process, emphasizing that negligence or inordinate delays without valid reasons are unlikely to be condoned. Judicial precedents affirm that invoking Section 5 is permissible to ensure substantive justice, but its application depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, especially considering statutory provisions and exceptional circumstances like pandemic-related delays.
References:- Dinesh Thakur Alias Dineshwar Thakur VS Amitabh Thakur - Patna- Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd. , Kribhco Surat Gujarat VS Union of India, Thru G. M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur - Allahabad- Krishna Kisku VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Chameli Devi, W/o late Rupesh Singh - Jharkhand- SMT. PREMAKUMARI vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - Karnataka- Naval Singh VS Commissioner Rohtak - Punjab and Haryana- A. Ramji Yadav VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand
Filing a restoration petition after a court case has been dismissed for default can be a critical step to revive your legal rights. But what happens if you're late? Many litigants face the hurdle of the limitation period expiring, raising the question: Sectin 5 Limitation Act in Restoration Petitiins—or more precisely, how does Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, apply to such scenarios?
This provision offers hope by allowing courts to condone delays if you show sufficient cause. In this blog post, we'll break down the key principles, landmark case laws, and practical insights to help you understand when and how courts exercise this power. Whether you're dealing with civil suits, family matters, or other proceedings, grasping Section 5 can make all the difference. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, empowers courts to admit appeals or applications after the prescribed limitation period if the applicant demonstrates sufficient cause for the delay. This is especially vital in restoration petitions, where cases dismissed for non-appearance (often under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC) need revival.
The provision states that any court may condone the delay for sufficient cause. Courts interpret this liberally to promote substantial justice, rather than letting technicalities defeat legitimate claims. As seen in various rulings, the focus is on the applicant's bona fides, not rigid timelines. Arumuga Velar VS Arulmigu Kuzhavar Street Mariamman Koil, through its Trustee Mariappan Velar and others - Madras (1999)
Judicial precedents have shaped how Section 5 operates in restoration contexts. Here are the core principles:
Liberal Construction of 'Sufficient Cause': Courts adopt a broad view to advance justice. The Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy held that delays should be condoned unless mala fides or dilatory tactics are evident. Arumuga Velar VS Arulmigu Kuzhavar Street Mariamman Koil, through its Trustee Mariappan Velar and others - Madras (1999)
Formal Application Not Always Required: You don't always need a separate Section 5 application if the restoration petition itself explains the delay adequately. Courts may grant leeway if facts satisfy their conscience. SURESH KUMAR VS FIRM KURBAN HUSSAIN TAIYAB ALI - Madhya Pradesh (1995)
Judicial Discretion: Trial courts have wide discretion, rarely interfered with unless arbitrary. This ensures case-specific fairness. CHANDRA KANT VS ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, JAUNPUR - Allahabad (2006)
Negligence and Indifference as Barriers: Delays due to counsel's gross negligence, like failing to track case status, lead to rejection. Litigants must show diligence. Bankim Chandra Paul VS Bhagyabala Dasi - Calcutta (2003)
Applicability in Family Courts: The Limitation Act applies to Family Courts Act proceedings, enabling delay condonation in restoration applications for family matters. DEEP MALA SHARMA VS MAHESH SHARMA - Allahabad (1991)
From additional precedents, Section 5 explicitly applies to restoration applications post-limitation lapse. Courts condone genuine delays but reject negligence. Dinesh Thakur Alias Dineshwar Thakur VS Amitabh Thakur - PatnaKrishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd. , Kribhco Surat Gujarat VS Union of India, Thru G. M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur - Allahabad
Courts have condoned delays from days to months with strong justification:- Delays allowed where applicants substantiated claims, such as fresh notices filed to avoid further time loss: Having considered the submission... the restoration application is liable to be allowed. In view of aforesaid, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is hereby allowed and delay... condoned. Ramdev Sharma S/o Nof Ghanshyam Das (Died) vs Babu Lal Chhipa S/o Late Hari Narain Chhipa - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 1770 - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1770- In contrast, rejections occur for insufficient reasons or lack of bona fides. Nand Gopal VS Moti Chand - Allahabad (2010)NIRUPOMA BASAK VS BAIDYANATH PRAMANICK - 1984 0 Supreme(Cal) 428
Other insights include:- No Prescribed Limitation in Some Cases: For miscellaneous restorations or default dismissals, no specific period exists under the Limitation Act Schedule. Applications must still be within reasonable time, and excessive delays (e.g., decades) are barred absent exceptional cause. Dinesh Thakur Alias Dineshwar Thakur VS Amitabh Thakur - PatnaKrishna Kisku VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand- Long Delays Scrutinized: Petitions after 30-40 years often fail without extraordinary reasons. A. Ramji Yadav VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand- Statutory Contexts: In land laws like PTCL Act, Section 5 may apply if not explicitly barred. SMT. PREMAKUMARI vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - Karnataka- COVID-19 Extensions: Supreme Court guidelines extended limitations during the pandemic, factoring into delay assessments. Naval Singh VS Commissioner Rohtak - Punjab and Haryana
One case notes: The period of limitation under the Limitation Act is intended to bar suits... where the party himself chooses to exercise his right of seeking restoration of immovable property. Yet, official actions may bypass strict limits. Shatura Munda VS State of Jharkhand - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 622 - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 622
In employee tribunals: Thereafter, the application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed... Dismissed if unjustified. Naliniprava Behera VS Executive Engineer, E. H. T. , Keonjhar - 2016 Supreme(Ori) 290 - 2016 0 Supreme(Ori) 290
When filing a restoration petition:- Demonstrate Sufficient Cause: Provide detailed affidavits, documents, or evidence (e.g., illness, travel, or external events). Courts seek proof of unavoidable delay.- Pair with Restoration Application: Often filed together, as in: An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed along with the restoration application. Lavlesh Singh VS Board of Revenue - 2020 Supreme(All) 1183 - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 1183- Avoid Common Pitfalls: No jail alibis without proof, or unmonitored cases. Even if no separate delay application, courts note lapses: though the restoration application... was hopelessly barred by limitation but no separate delay condonation application... was filed. Pavitra Devi VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 1834 - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1834
In trusts or civil suits, signatures and representation matter for validity. Education Welfare Charitable Trust VS Art Work Expert Limited - 2014 Supreme(Cal) 605 - 2014 0 Supreme(Cal) 605
Section 5 of the Limitation Act serves as a safety valve in restoration petitions, balancing limitation rigidity with justice. Courts condone delays for genuine reasons but remain vigilant against abuse. Success hinges on a compelling narrative of sufficient cause, backed by evidence.
Key Takeaways:- Act promptly and document delays meticulously.- Leverage judicial discretion by emphasizing substantial justice.- Monitor proceedings to dodge negligence claims.- In family or special statutes, confirm applicability.
By preparing thoroughly, you boost chances of revival. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References: Basti Ram VS Union of India - Rajasthan (1999)Sugna Ram VS Birla White Cement, Kharia Khangar, Tehsil Bhopalgarh - Rajasthan (2019)Delhi Jal Board VS Digvijay Sanitations - Delhi (2009)Illamalli VS Krishnaveni - Madras (2015)SURESH KUMAR VS FIRM KURBAN HUSSAIN TAIYAB ALI - Madhya Pradesh (1995)National Insurance Company Limited VS Asha Ram - Rajasthan (2021)National Insurance Company Limited VS Asha Ram - Rajasthan (2021)Arumuga Velar VS Arulmigu Kuzhavar Street Mariamman Koil, through its Trustee Mariappan Velar and others - Madras (1999)Ram Briksh Singh VS Amjad - Allahabad (2004)State of Rajasthan VS Bhanwar Lal Nagwal S/o Late Shri Ramnath - Rajasthan (2019)Universal Builders and Contractors VS Sheila Singh Uppal - Delhi (2008)Nikhat Baano VS Narendra Kumar - Rajasthan (2015)Rakesh Kumar Jain VS Zulfkar Ali - Allahabad (2023)Nand Gopal VS Moti Chand - Allahabad (2010)DEEP MALA SHARMA VS MAHESH SHARMA - Allahabad (1991)T. M. AND M. C. PVT. LTD. VS SITA DEVI HARALALKA - Calcutta (1998)Bankim Chandra Paul VS Bhagyabala Dasi - Calcutta (2003)NIRUPOMA BASAK VS BAIDYANATH PRAMANICK - 1984 0 Supreme(Cal) 428Dinesh Thakur Alias Dineshwar Thakur VS Amitabh Thakur - PatnaKrishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd. , Kribhco Surat Gujarat VS Union of India, Thru G. M. Northern Eastern Railway Gorakhpur - AllahabadKrishna Kisku VS State of Jharkhand - JharkhandOriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Chameli Devi, W/o late Rupesh Singh - JharkhandLakhindra Mahto, Son of Late Meghnath Mahto vs Pachi Devi, Wife of Late Jhalku Mahto - JharkhandSMT. PREMAKUMARI vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - KarnatakaNaval Singh VS Commissioner Rohtak - Punjab and HaryanaA. Ramji Yadav VS State of Jharkhand - JharkhandShatura Munda VS State of Jharkhand - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 622 - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 622Ramdev Sharma S/o Nof Ghanshyam Das (Died) vs Babu Lal Chhipa S/o Late Hari Narain Chhipa - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 1770 - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1770Pavitra Devi VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 1834 - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1834Lavlesh Singh VS Board of Revenue - 2020 Supreme(All) 1183 - 2020 0 Supreme(All) 1183Naliniprava Behera VS Executive Engineer, E. H. T. , Keonjhar - 2016 Supreme(Ori) 290 - 2016 0 Supreme(Ori) 290Education Welfare Charitable Trust VS Art Work Expert Limited - 2014 Supreme(Cal) 605 - 2014 0 Supreme(Cal) 605
#LimitationAct, #RestorationPetition, #Section5
Case No. 1/2015 was not filed for restoration of any suit/appeal dismissed for default, but for restoration of Misc. Case filed for restoration of previous restoration application and which was dismissed for default. 5. ... After perusal of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, it is found that there is no prescription of any limitation period for such a....
Hence, considering the mandate of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ... Hence, considering the mandate of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ... In the wake of the preceding discussion, this Court finds that Section #HL....
Section 71-A of the Act, 1908 has been filed for restoration of the aforesaid land which is in illegal possession of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. ... The D.C.L.R. has also taken the ground in not entertaining to the application filed under Section 46(4A) of the Act, 1908 that the said application is also barred by limitation since the restoration application has been filed after lapse o....
Deputy Commissioner and others, where the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. ... The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "P....
5. Sub-clause 3 of para No.5 of the said judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation” (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- “III. ... The period of limitation for filing the restoration application with respect to the case, which was dismissed on 12/10/20, was to start from 01.03.2022 and thus, the dismissal of the restoration application on....
At belated stage, petitioner has filed restoration application dated 24.03.2000 (Annexure no.3) supported by affidavit along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act. ... The expression 'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is w....
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this interlocutory application which has been filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay of 394 days for restoration of civil miscellaneous petition being C.M.P. ... This is not the first time, as the earlier civil miscellaneous petition which was dismissed, was also filed for restoration of Miscellaneous Applicatio....
application as well as the petition for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. ... It is further submitted that admittedly the application for restoration of the suit was time barred inasmuch as the suit was dismissed on 06.10.2007 and the restoration application was filed on 10.03.2008 along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation#H....
The period of limitation under the Limitation Act is intended to bar suits brought in civil courts where the party himself chooses to exercise his right of seeking restoration of immovable property. ... Thus, where the Deputy Commissioner chooses to exercise his power under Section 71-A it would be futile to contend that the period of limitation under the Limitation Act....
It further appears from the Act, 1908 that at the time when the Act was enacted there was no provision for restoration of land save and except the provision as contained under Section 46 [(4-A) (a) of the Act, 1908 which provides the period of limitation for 12 years so far as the land belongs to the ... to the writ petition; and order dated 01.10.2002 passed by revisional authority in SAR No. 102/2002-20....
13. Having considered the submission, it has come to our notice that the counsel has filed fresh PF-notices so that time may not be consumed in case restoration application is allowed. Considering the grounds as submitted by the counsel and also mentioned in application the restoration application is liable to be allowed. 14. In view of aforesaid, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is hereby allowed and delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. The restorati....
2016 was filed. The said restoration application is on record at page 66-A of the paper book. With reference to above it is urged by learned counsel for petitioner that though the restoration application filed by respondent-5 was hopelessly barred by limitation but no separate delay condonation application in terms of section 5 of limitation act was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing restoration application. However, in ignorance of above, respondent-4 Naib Tehsildar, Tehsi....
An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed along with the restoration application. Against aforesaid order, a restoration application was filed by Harish Chandra and others, which are private respondents, before the respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue in the month of May, 2018. A reply to the aforesaid restoration application was filed by the petitioners stating therein that it is wrong to say that he was in jail during the aforesaid period and in fact ....
Thereafter, the application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed before the learned Tribunal. By order dated 07.04.2006, learned Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration. The claim application was dismissed for default on 16.01.2006.
In the considered view of this Court although the order impugned no. 372 dated 26th August, 2011 passed by the Ld. 6th Civil Court (Senior Division) declares that there is no representation on behalf of the plaintiff no.2 in the application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC and none has signed on behalf of the plaintiff no. 1. The application for restoration of the suit filed under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC is found to be signed by both Dilip Ghosh and Bharati Ghosh acting on behalf of the trust. #HL_ST....
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
