Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Katari Suryanarayana & Ors vs Koppisetti Subba Rao & Ors on 8 April, 2009
11. The judgment of Katari Suryanaryana & Others vs. Koppisetti
Subba Rao & Others, reported in CDJ 2009 SC 715, has been cited for the
proposition that at least once in a year; one should contact the laywer. It is
held as under.
Mohd. Sahid vs Raziya Khanam (Died) Thr. Lrs on 10 October, 2018
23. Another judgment relied on by the petitioner in Mohammed Sahid
& Others Vs. Raziya Khanam (dead) through Lrs and another, DCJ 2018 SC
1059 for the proposition application for condonation of delay with incorrect
21/28
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(NPD).No.4003 of 2019
facts and were negligent in pursuing the matter and rightly refused to
condone the delay is concerned it is akin to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dalip Singh (Supra). The other judgments relied by the
learned counsel for respondent also reiterate the same principles. Therefore, I
am of the considered opinion that the Hon'ble Suprme Court has categorically
held that in the given facts and circumstances of each case, in order to
advance substantial justice appropriate decision shall be taken.
Union Of India vs Ram Charan & Others on 30 April, 1963
“ 9. This Court also made some observations in Ram
Charan (Supra) about the need to explain, in addition to
alleging that the plaintiff/appellant not being aware about the
death, the reasons for not knowing about the death within a
reasonable time. Those observations have stood diluted in view
of subsequent insertion of sub-rule (5) in Rule 4 and addition
of Rule 10A in Order 22 CPC by Amendment Act 104 of 1976,
requiring (i) the court to take note of the ignorance of death as
sufficient cause for condonation of delay, (ii) the counsel for
the deceased party to inform the court about the death of his
client.”
The principles applicable in considering applications
for setting aside abatement may thus be summarized as follows
:
Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom Perinadu ... vs Bhargavi Amma (D) Thr. Lrs on 11 July, 2008
We
find it unnecessary to discuss the instances which would fall
under either of these classes of cases. The party should show
that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps
within its power and control and had approached the Court
without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a
cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by
the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced
Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]”
17/28
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(NPD).No.4003 of 2019
In the above judgment, Hon'ble Judges relied on the judgment of
Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom (Supra). A reading of the above paragraph
enlighten us that it is difficult to state any straight-jacket formula which can
uniformly applied to all cases without reference to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of a given case. It also mandates that whenever a law is
enacted by the legislature, it is intended to be enforced in its proper
perspective and Courts should not give such an interpretation to provisions
which would render the provision ineffective or odious. It is further observed
that Liberal construction of the expression “sufficient cause” is intended to
advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or
inaction on the part of the applicant, to whom want of bonafide is
indisputable.
H. Dohil Constructions Co P Ltd vs Nahar Exports Ltd &Amp Anr on 20 August, 2014
22. The judgments reported in CDJ 2014 SC 1105, H. Dohil
Constructions Co.P. Ltd vs. Nahar Exports Ltd and another and judgment of
Madras High Court in CDJ 2017 MHC 6741, Gali Simhachalam Vs.
M.Chandrasekar & Others deal with condoning the delay of 1727 & 1155
days in refiling the appeals. Allegations were made against the advocate for
the delay. In such circumstances it was held that throwing the blame on the
previous counsel to whom appeal papers were entrusted without details as to
steps taken by the litigant to ensure the appeal filed was registered for
pursuing the remedy before Court cannot be accepted. Such a situation does
not arise in the present case. As discussed above the litigation is continued
with the same advocate and under his legal advice. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the action of the petitioner lacks bonafide.
Mr.Gali Simhachalam vs M.Chandrasekar on 5 September, 2017
22. The judgments reported in CDJ 2014 SC 1105, H. Dohil
Constructions Co.P. Ltd vs. Nahar Exports Ltd and another and judgment of
Madras High Court in CDJ 2017 MHC 6741, Gali Simhachalam Vs.
M.Chandrasekar & Others deal with condoning the delay of 1727 & 1155
days in refiling the appeals. Allegations were made against the advocate for
the delay. In such circumstances it was held that throwing the blame on the
previous counsel to whom appeal papers were entrusted without details as to
steps taken by the litigant to ensure the appeal filed was registered for
pursuing the remedy before Court cannot be accepted. Such a situation does
not arise in the present case. As discussed above the litigation is continued
with the same advocate and under his legal advice. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the action of the petitioner lacks bonafide.
1