Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi on 16 December, 2021
7. Per contra, counsel for respondent/plaintiff
vehemently contend that the Apex Court in judgement
reported in AIR 2022 SC 332 in the case of Majji
Sannemma alias Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi in para
No.7.4, has categorically held that 'sufficient cause' cannot
be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of
bonafides is attributed to the party. It is further observed
that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a
party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when
prescribed by statute. Further, it is observed that in case a
party has acted with negligence, lack of bonafides or there
is an inaction, then there cannot be any justified ground
for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is
further observed that each application for condonation of
delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by
this Court. If no sufficient cause is made out by imposing
conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory
principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Smt. Parvathamma vs Smt. Jayamma on 27 April, 2018
10. Having heard the respective counsel and also
on perusal of the material available on record, admittedly
there is no dispute with regard to the fact that suit was
decreed on 22.01.2018 and also the defendant/appellant
contested the matter representing through counsel and
counsel appearing for respondent/plaintiff brought to the
notice of this Court that the counsel was retired from the
case after giving notice to the present appellant herein and
the very contention that counsel did not inform about the
disposal of the case and not cross-examined the witness
cannot be accepted when the counsel himself has retired
from the case after giving notice to the appellant and it is
not the contention of the appellant that no such notice was
given and not denied even issuance of notice and hence, it
is clear that first affidavit is filed before the Court along
-8-
RFA No. 100126 of 2021
with application for condonation of delay making an
allegation against the counsel and hence, judgment of
Division Bench in Parvathamma's case is aptly applicable
to the case on hand, wherein it is held that it is the party
who should be diligent but in the case on hand party is not
diligent inspite of service of notice by the counsel who was
representing before the trial Court and the appellant did
not take any steps to engage a new counsel or continue
the same counsel. Apart from that a false ground is taken
in this appeal that counsel has not contested the matter
and not informed the same and he kept quite and the
judgement of the Apex Court referred supra in the case of
Majji Sannemma in para 7.4 which has been referred
above, it is very clear that 'sufficient cause' cannot be
liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of
bonafides is attributed to the party and in case a party has
acted with negligence, lack of bonafides or there is
inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for
condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. In the
-9-
RFA No. 100126 of 2021
case on hand, there is lack of bonafides on the part of the
appellant and inaction on the part of the appellant and
also there was negligence and hence he has not contested
the matter and inspite of receipt of notice from the earlier
counsel he did not take any steps and no sufficient cause
is explained in the affidavit.
1