Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Shakuntala Devi Jain vs Kuntal Kumari And Ors. on 5 September, 1968
12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result
foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption
that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held
that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice
vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State
of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972
SC 749].
State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971
12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result
foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption
that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held
that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice
vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State
of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972
SC 749].
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
4. The Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, after considering a series of earlier decisions,
summarised the principles to be followed while considering an application for
condonation of delay. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
H. Dohil Constructions Co P Ltd vs Nahar Exports Ltd &Amp Anr on 20 August, 2014
“23. When we apply those principles to the case on hand, it has to be
stated that the failure of the Respondents in not showing due diligence in
filing of the appeals and the enormous time taken in the refiling can only be
construed, in the absence of any valid explanation, as gross negligence and
lacks in bonafides as displayed on the part of the Respondents. Further,
when the Respondents have not come forward with proper details as regards
the date when the papers were returned for refiling, the non-furnishing of
satisfactory reasons for not refiling of papers in time and the failure to pay
the Court fee at the time of the filing of appeal papers on 06.09.2007, the
reasons which prevented the Respondents from not paying the Court fee
along with the appeal papers and the failure to furnish the details as to who
was their counsel who was previously entrusted with the filing of the appeals
cumulatively considered, disclose that there was total lack of bonafides in its
approach. It also requires to be stated that in the case on hand, not refiling
the appeal papers within the time CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 22 of 25
(@ SLP (C) Nos.10811-10812 of 2014 & Connected matters prescribed and
by allowing the delay to the extent of nearly 1727 days, definitely calls for a
stringent scrutiny and cannot be accepted as having been explained without
5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.21886 of 2024 in W.A.SR.No.129296 of 2024
proper reasons. As has been laid down by this Court, Courts are required to
weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the same
principle cannot be given a go-by under the guise of liberal approach even if
it pertains to refiling. The filing of an application for condoning the delay of
1727 days in the matter of refiling without disclosing reasons, much less
satisfactory reasons only results in the Respondents not deserving any
indulgence by the Court in the matter of condonation of delay. The
Respondents had filed the suit for specific performance and when the trial
Court found that the claim for specific performance based on the agreement
was correct but exercised its discretion not to grant the relief for specific
performance but grant only a payment of damages and the Respondents
were really keen to get the decree for specific performance by filing the
appeals, they should have shown utmost diligence and come forward with
justifiable reasons when an enormous delay of five years was involved in
getting its appeals registered”.
1