Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Ramji Pandey & Ors vs Swaran Kali on 25 October, 2010
In the case of Ramji Pandey (supra) the facts
were that in spite of the objection to the maintainability of the
appeal before the District court for want of pecuniary
jurisdiction, the appellants therein continued to pursue the appeal
and obtained the order in their favour. Besides, the facts also
disclosed that the appellants also failed to pursue the suit in right
earnest leading to an ex parte decree against them. Their
Lordships in these back drop of facts have come to the
conclusion that the appellants were not only negligent but were
also not pursuing the entire matter with due diligence and
accordingly refused to interfere with the order of the High Court
which had refused to condone the delay by granting indulgence
to the appellants under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The facts
in the present case however, are different and do not disclose
inaction or gross negligence on the part of the petitioner as the
Patna High Court C.R. No.81 of 2014 (16) dt.22-06-2015
5
appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction was filed by
the petitioner, though before the wrong forum, but within the
time and the same was also admitted for hearing. Thereafter, in
response to the objection raised by the plaintiff-respondent to the
maintainability of the appeal, the petitioner filed the petition for
withdrawal though belatedly.
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
Testing the explanation furnished by the petitioner
for belated filing of this revision application on the anvil of the
principles as laid down by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee
(supra), this Court has not been persuaded to conclude that the
petitioner has acted with gross negligence and lack of bonafidies
are imputable upon him. The filing of the appeal within time
though before a wrong forum, the withdrawal of appeal after the
objection was raised to its maintainability though belatedly prayed
Patna High Court C.R. No.81 of 2014 (16) dt.22-06-2015
6
and thereafter filing this revision application are facts which are
not strictly compatible with the allegations of gross negligence,
inaction or default. There is also no presumption to deliberate
causation of delay, and lack of bonafides cannot be inferred only
due to belated filing. It is also apparent that the petitioner has no
other remedy against the impugned judgment and order of
eviction except this revision application. Simultaneously
however, it also cannot be ignored that the opposite party has
filed the suit for eviction on ground of personal necessity and has
also been granted the order of eviction for which the execution
case has been filed.
1