Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
In Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy , the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as well as the powers of revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. In that case, the Apex Court pointed out that want of extra vigilance need not be need as a ground to depict him as a litigant not aware of his responsibilities, and to visit him with drastic consequences. It is further pointed out that once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or ar bitrary or perverse. I deem it necessary to quote paragraphs 12 to 14 from the said judgment in extenso, which read thus:
Shakuntala Devi Jain vs Kuntal Kumari And Ors. on 5 September, 1968
13. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in 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 v. Kuntal Kumari and State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality .
C. Subramaniam vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. By Its ... on 28 July, 2000
7. Before entering into the discussion on merits, it is worthwhile to refer the two recent judgments which lays down the principle for consideration of the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subramaniam v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2000) 3 M.L.J. 181, after considering several judgments of various High Courts as well as the Apex Court has held as follows:
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971
8. From the above principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Apex Court, it is clear the length of delay is no matter but acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion and the Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but they are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics to seek their remedy promptly. Further if the explanation offered by the party does not smack of mala fide or it is put forth as part of the dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor and the party must show that he/she is put to manifest injustice or hardship if the delay is not condoned. Hence it is for the Court to consider whether the petitioner had deliberately to gain time allowed the suit to be decreed ex parts and come forward with the petition to condone the delay and to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree.
1