Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Smt Sarojani Devi W/O Shri Suraj Narayan vs Raghav Dass Goyal, Advocate, S/O Shri ... on 27 October, 2021
Appeal No.582/1997 titled Sarojni
Devi Vs. Raghav Das. Other two appeals are listed today for
hearing. It appears that the line of defence and challenge to the
impugned order dated 05.04.1997 is also in sum and substance
similar in all three appeals. No doubt there is an exorbitant and
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:37:05 AM)
(4 of 10) [CFA-425/2014]
gross delay in filing the restoration application, however, it may
not be inferred that there is any mala fides on the part of
applicants or deliberate inaction, in moving the restoration
application belated.
The Commissioner Mysore Urban ... vs S.S. Sarvesh on 5 February, 2019
In Case of Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development
Authority Vs. S.S. Sarvesh [(2019) 5 SCC 144], the Apex
Court has observed that the Court should make an endeavor to
decide the appeal on merits, instead of declining to restore the
appeal. Indeed, dismissal of the appeal in default and dismissal of
the appeal on merits makes a difference.
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N. Balakrishnan v. M.
Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] and followed in the case of
B Madhuri Goud Vs. B. Damodar Reddy [(2012) 12 SCC
693], has observed that condonation of delay is a matter of
discretion of the court and length of delay is no matter,
acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria. Finally, the
Apex court held as under:
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom Perinadu ... vs Bhargavi Amma (D) Thr. Lrs on 11 July, 2008
In another case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom Vs.
Bhargavi Amma [(2008) 8 SCC 321], the Apex Court held as
under:
Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Nath Sao (Supra)
has observed that expression "sufficient cause" within the
meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or Order 22 Rule
9 CPC or any other similar provision should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice when no
negligence or inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:37:05 AM)
(9 of 10) [CFA-425/2014]
party and balance of interest and stake involved in the subject
matter be taken into consideration.
Hanuman vs Gulab Chand And Ors on 23 May, 2017
7. It is not in dispute that the order dated 05.04.1997 is
common which was challenged by way of three different appeals,
CMA No.364/1997 which has now been converted and registered
as Civil First Appeal No.425/2014 titled Smt. Indra Devi Vs.
Raghav Das, CMA No.399/1997 titled Hanuman Vs. Gulab Chand
as well as present Civil Misc.
1