Second appeal filed regarding dismissal of first appeal due to limitation delay. Court held sufficient cause shown for delay, set aside impugned order, and restored first appeal for disposal.
Impugned order set aside; delay condoned; first appeal restored to first appellate court for hearing within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.A.No.379/2009
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No.379 of 2009
Megh Singh, S/o Late Ram Bharosh, aged about 63 years, R/o Village Pachri, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Appellant/ (Plaintiff)
Versus
---- Respondents/ (Defendants)
For Appellant: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Adv. For Respondents No.1 to 5: None present though served. For State/Respondent No.6: Mrs. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
05/10/2016
dated 1-9-2009 on the following substantial question of law: -
"Whether, the lower appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation?"
herein on 26-11-2008 against which first appeal was preferred
S.A.No.379/2009
Page 2 of 4
which was barred by 129 days. Application for condonation of delay was filed and that too has been dismissed on the ground that sufficient cause has not been shown for delay. Whereas, according to the plaintiff / appellant herein, sufficient cause for delay has been shown, as the plaintiff was not present at the time when the judgment was delivered by the trial Court and the counsel has not informed him about the delivery of judgment by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the first appellate Court, second appeal has been preferred and question of law has been framed.
S.A.No.379/2009
Page 3 of 4
the application.
“11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitation newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
1 (1998) 7 SCC 123
S.A.No.379/2009
Page 4 of 4
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 v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 Sc 575] and State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749].”
11.Decree be drawn accordingly.
Soma
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N. Balakrishnan v. M. KrishnamurthyFollowed¶38
(1998) 7 SCC 123 · Who else cites this
Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal KumariReferred¶38
[AIR 1969 Sc 575] · Who else cites this
State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah MunicipalityReferred¶38
[AIR 1972 SC 749] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Megh Singh
Raimat Bai
Resham Bai
Kosam Bai
Tirath Ram
Tirath Bai
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
