Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)
Raj Kishan Chabra (Since Deceased) ... vs Bharat Kalra And Ors on 30 September, 2024 cites

Mithailal Dalsangar Singh And Ors vs Annabai Devram Kini And Ors on 16 September, 2003

27. In the light of the aforesaid principles, the facts of the present case may now be considered. The respondents herein failed to file their Application for substitution of legal heirs under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC, 1908 within a period of 90 days but after a delay of 58 days. The explanation given is that they came to know about the demise of the defendant only on 10.03.2023 when the counsel for Signature Not Verified C.R.P. 226/2024 Digitally Signed Page 8 of 10 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:08.10.2024 18:05:37 the defendant filed a substitution application in the connected litigation between the parties. From the said date, this Application has been filed within 90 days i.e., on 03.06.2023. Here is the case wherein there is inadvertence on the part of the counsel who has miscalculated the period of limitation. The party who is essentially dependent upon the counsel insofar as the legal aspects of the trial are concerned, cannot be said to have been negligent but is a case of inadvertence. No lack of diligence or malafide can be imputed to the party nor was the delay on account of the conduct of the party. Though no separate Application under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC, 1908 has been filed for setting aside the abatement, but in the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh and Ors (Supra), it has been observed that in appropriate cases, the request for setting aside the abatement may be read into the Application under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC, 1908. In case, there is consideration of condonation of delay, then too, instead of taking a pedantic approach of insisting on an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay, the Court is well within its power to exercise the jurisdiction of condoning the delay, in case it is found that the delay has been sufficiently explained in the application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 170 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961

In Ramlal (Supra), it has further been observed that even if sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to condonation of delay as a matter of right. The proof of sufficient cause is condition precedent for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If sufficient cause is not proved, nothing further has to be done. The application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed on this ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown, then the Court has to inquire whether in its discretion, it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter introduces consideration of all relevant facts at this stage. The diligence of the party or its bona fide may fall for Signature Not Verified C.R.P. 226/2024 Digitally Signed Page 7 of 10 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:08.10.2024 18:05:37 consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 816 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 July, 2010

In the context of Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC, 1908, apex Court in Balwant Singh (dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors, (2010) 8 SCC 685 it was noted that at times, the Courts have taken a liberal attitude, while on other occasions, a stricter view has been preferred whenever the explanation has not been found satisfactory. Therefore, there can be no straight-jacket formula which can be uniformly applied to all cases without a reference to the facts and circumstances of the given case. A word of caution was also given that the well-settled cannons of interpretative jurisprudence provides that the Courts should not give such interpretation to the provisions as would render them ineffective or odious. Once the provision of Order XXII of CPC, 1908 has been enacted with particular reference to Rule 9 and the Rules of Limitation Act, 1963 have been made applicable to entertain such applications, these provisions must be given and true and correct meaning must be applied whenever called for. Liberal construction of the expression 'sufficient cause' is intended to advance substantial justice which itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the party of the applicant to whom want of bona fide is imputable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1362 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next