Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
8. The said power to condone the delay and admit
the appeal preferred after the expiry of the time is
discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if
"sufficient cause" is shown based upon post of other
factors such as negligence, failure to exercise due
diligence etc., the Apex Court in the case of Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Other Vs. Katiji and
Others1 has held in advocating the liberal approach in
condoning the delay for sufficient cause held that
ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an
appeal late: it is not necessary to explain every days delay
in filing the appeal: and since some time refusal to
condone the delay may result in throwing out the
meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice
1
(1987) 2 SCC 107
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5349
MSA No. 200520 of 2023
that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to
prevail upon the technical consideration and if the delay is
not deliberate, it not be condoned. Notwithstanding the
above, howsoever liberal approach is adopted in condoning
the delay, existence of "sufficient cause" for not filing the
appeal in time is a condition precedent for exercising the
discretionary power to condone the delay.
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961
9. The phrases "liberal approach, justice oriented
approach" and cause for the advancement of "substantial
justice" cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation
so as to allow the stale matters or as a matter of fact dead
matters to be revived and reopened by taking aid of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, the
delay is of not few days but inordinate delay of 2291 days,
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prescribes certain period
for filing an appeal, substantial right is already been
created in favour of the decree holder/claimants herein
and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed, the
claimants have already created a decree in their favour by
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5349
MSA No. 200520 of 2023
lapse of time. The Apex Court in the case of Ramlal,
Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields ltd.,2 has
emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been
shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the
said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as
excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested
with the Court. The Court, despite establishment of
"sufficient cause" for various reasons may refuse to
condone the delay depending upon the bonafide of the
party.
Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 24 February, 2011
10. The Apex Court in the case of Lanka
Venkateswarlu (Dead) By LRs Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Others3 has observed that despite
unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, the
High Court had allowed application for condonation of
delay, the Apex Court held that the High Court failed to
exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective
manner. The High Court should have exercised the
2
AIR 1962 SC 361
3
(2011) 4 SCC 363
Basawaraj vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27 May, 2008
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5349
MSA No. 200520 of 2023
discretion in a systematic and in informed manner. The
liberal approach in considering the sufficiency of the cause
for delay should not allowed to over ride the substantial
law of limitation. The Court further observed that the
concepts such as "liberal approach" "justice oriented
approach" and "substantial justice" cannot be employed to
jettison the substantial law of limitation. The Apex Court in
the later judgment of Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer4 (Basawaraj) has observed
that the discretion to condone the delay has to be
exercised judiciously based upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. "Sufficient cause", as
occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, cannot be
liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of
bonafide is writ large. It has also observed even though
limitation may harshly affect the rights of the parties but it
has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the
statute and the Courts have no choice but to apply the law
4
(2013) 14 SCC 81
Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram on 31 January, 2023
12. The Apex Court in another judgment in the case
of Ajay Dabra Vs. Pyare Ram and Ors6 has observed
that an appeal has to be filed within a stipulated period
6
2023 live law (SC) 69