Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002
21. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has also placed reliance upon the decision Ram Nat Sao and Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao and Ors., 2002 (1) CTC 769, in support of his contention that the Court cannot condone delay which would defeat the valuable right accrued to the opponent. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has submitted that though the Decree is of the year 1989, the Plaintiff is unable to enjoy the fruits of the Decree in view of the dilatory tactics adopted by the Revision Petitioners. This contention has no merits. Even in the above said decision, the Supreme Court has observed: "While considering the matter, the Courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way". In this case, it is relevant to note that the suit property bearing D.No. 974, Appavu Mudali Street is a valuable property situated in Alandur, Saidapet Taluk. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant Inderchand Bothra entered into an agreement of sale agreeing to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs. 74,000 and he received an advance of Rs. 5,000. The Defendant has taken a definite plea of forgery, denying the execution of the said agreement of sale and according to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was only a tenant under him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, there is reason to presume that the Plaintiff may try to retain the suit property. In consideration of the plea set-forth by both parties, fairness requires that opportunity is to be given to the Legal Representatives of the deceased/Defendant to set forth their defence and contest the suit. In consideration of the delay in filing the application and in the light of the contentious points urged by the Respondent, interest of justice would be met by directing the Revision Petitioners to pay a cost of Rs. 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the Respondent Plaintiff as cost in condoning the delay.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs Ram Charan & Others on 30 April, 1963
19. No doubt, there is enormous delay of 3290 days in filing the application to set aside the abatement. It is not the number of days that counts. The benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act liberal construction of the expression "sufficient cause" is to be extended to the application filed under Order 22, Rule 4, C.P.C. for the substitution of the Legal Representatives of the deceased/Defendant/Petitioner in I.A. No. 8353/1991. While condoning the delay in presenting the application for setting aside the abatement, and for bringing the Legal Representatives on record in Union of India v. Ram Chanaran, AIR 1964 SC 215 and Food Corporation of India v. Shri Ramchandran B. & R. Rice Mill, the Supreme Court has observed thus:
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
Referring to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, , in the above said decision, the Supreme Court has observed:
1