Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.34 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002
11) But one thing is clear that the courts
should not proceed with the tendency of
finding fault with the cause shown and reject
the petition by a slipshod order in over-
jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of
explanation furnished should be the rule and
refusal, an exception, more so when no
negligence or inaction or want of bona fides
can be imputed to the defaulting party. On
the other hand, while considering the matter
the courts should not lose sight of the fact
that by not taking steps within the time
prescribed a valuable right has accrued to
the other party which should not be lightly
defeated by condoning delay in a routine-like
manner. However, by taking a pedantic and
hyper technical view of the matter the
explanation furnished should not be rejected
when stakes are high and/or arguable points
of facts and law are involved in the case,
causing enormous loss and irreparable injury
Page 42 of 56
C/CA/2685/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
to the party against whom the lis terminates,
either by default or inaction and defeating
valuable right of such a party to have the
decision on merit. While considering the
matter, courts have to strike a balance
between resultant effect of the order it is
going to pass upon the parties either way.
Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. v.
Gobardhan Sao and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 195: (AIR
2002 SC 1201: 2002 AIR SCW 978)
The Limitation Act, 1963
Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl.Laq Officer on 22 August, 2013
However the same Bench of the Hon'ble
Apex Court has even after referring the said
decision, when there was a delay of 5-1/2 years
in filing the appeals under Section 54 of the Act
before the High Court with the only explanation
offered for approaching the court at such a
belated stage has been that one of the appellants
had taken ill, did not condone the delay, on the
same day i.e. 22 August, 2013 but observed as
under in the case of Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl.Laq
Officer, Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013 reported
in 2013(10) SCALE 391 : AIR 2013 SCW 6510 : 2013
[3] GLH 163
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for
which defendant could not be blamed for
his absence. The meaning of the word
"sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough",
inasmuch as may be necessary to answer
Page 35 of 56
C/CA/2685/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
the purpose intended. Therefore, the
word "sufficient" embraces no more than
that which provides a platitude, which
when the act done suffices to accomplish
the purpose intended in the facts and
circumstances existing in a case, duly
examined from the view point of a
reasonable standard of a cautious man.
In this context, "sufficient cause"
Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963
In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar,
AIR 1964 SC 993 this Court explained the
difference between a "good cause" and a
"sufficient cause" and observed that
Page 36 of 56
C/CA/2685/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
every "sufficient cause" is a good cause
and vice versa. However, if any
difference exists it can only be that
the requirement of good cause is
complied with on a lesser degree of
proof that that of "sufficient cause".
Madanlal vs Shyamlal on 9 November, 2001
should be given a liberal interpretation
to ensure that substantial justice is
done, but only so long as negligence,
inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be
imputed to the party concerned, whether
or not sufficient cause has been
furnished, can be decided on the facts
of a particular case and no straitjacket
formula is possible. (Vide: Madanlal v.
Shyamlal, AIR 2002 SC 100; and Ram Nath
Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. v. Gobardhan
Sao & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1201.)"
Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 July, 2010
1) Delay should be condoned to do
substantial justice but without resulting in
injustice to other party. Thus balance has
to be kept in mind by Court while deciding
such applications. It is difficult to state
any straitjacket formula that can uniformly
be applied to all cases without reference to
the peculiar facts and circumstances of a
given case. Thereby liberal construction of
the expression "sufficient cause" is intended
to advance substantial justice which itself
presupposes no negligence or inaction on part
of the applicant, to whom want of bona fide
is imputable. The expression "sufficient
cause" implies the presence of legal and
adequate reasons. (Balwant Singh v. Jagdish
Singh- (2010) 8 SCC 685).
Bogidhola Tea & Trading Co. Ltd. And Anr vs Hira Lal Somani on 7 December, 2007
3) When ex parte decree suffers from non-
application of mind, the statute obligated
upon the court of law to examine that whether
plaintiff has proved his case or not and
thereby disposal of appeal on limitation was
reversed. - (Bogidhola Tea & Trading Co Ltd.
V. Hira Lal Somani - (2007) 14 SCC 606).