Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)Shakuntala Devi Jain vs Kuntal Kumari And Ors. on 5 September, 1968
A court knows that refusal to condone delay would
result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause.
There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court
is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words
"sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
should receive a liberal construction so as to advance
substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal
Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The
Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749].
It must be remembered that in every case of delay
there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant
concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea
and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does
not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a
dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration
to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think
that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to
gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of
the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not
forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in
mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred
quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary
guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches
on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the
opposite party for his loss.
State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971
A court knows that refusal to condone delay would
result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause.
There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court
is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words
"sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
should receive a liberal construction so as to advance
substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal
Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The
Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749].
It must be remembered that in every case of delay
there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant
concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea
and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does
not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a
dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration
to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think
that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to
gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of
the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not
forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in
mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred
quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary
guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches
on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the
opposite party for his loss.
1