Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.74 seconds)
Smt Nahani Devi vs Gopal Lal Sharma And Others on 27 May, 2022 cites

Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002

11.4 In case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu (supra), referred by counsel for respondents, the Supreme Court has (Downloaded on 31/05/2022 at 09:02:11 PM) (17 of 18) [CR-37/2010] observed that expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act which receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to party. Applying this ratio to the facts of present case, the original plaintiffs were not only negligent in pursuing their suit for specific performance as also not moving any application for restoration but applicants, who moved the application, are not bonafide and have not come with clean hands.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 822 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

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

11.3 In case of Lanka Venkateshwarlu (D) (supra) referred by counsel for petitioners declined to condone the delay of two years and observed, placing reliance on the previous judgment passed in case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh & Ors. Vs. Annabai Devram Kini & Ors. [AIR 2003 SC 4244] that even if the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely filed within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the concerned parties. The purpose of introducing the liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of reasonableness as it is understood in its general connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has defined consequences on the right and application of a party to arise. Once a valuable right, has accrued in favour of one party as a result of failure of other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that is accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 170 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next