The court condoned a delay of 249 days in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, accepting the explanation of the applicant's old age and emotional shock due to her son's death as sufficient grounds.
Delay of 249 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is disposed of.
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.
CMP(M) No. 752 of 2016 24.05.2017 Present: Mr. Pradeep K. Gupta Advocate, for the applicants/appellants, except applicant/appellant. No. 1 Mr.Gulzar Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. None for other respondents.
CMP(M) No. 752 of 2016
The present application is maintained by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As per the applicant, the delay of 249 days has occurred in filing the appeal for the reasons that applicant No. 1 is aged about 80 years old and is in disturbed state of mind due to death of her son. It is further averred that applicant No. 1 is weak and suffering from old age problems for the last one year. Further applicant No. 2 is a house wife and had to attend her old parentsin-law, that is, appellant No.1 and father-in-law and after death of her husband, she is performing duties of a son qua her parents-inlaw who cannot be left unattended, hence the applicant/appellant could not travel to Shimla to instruct Counsel to file the accompanying appeal. The applicant/appellant contacted present counsel on phone and requested him to visit residence of the applicant/appellant, who could travel to the village only on 5th May, 2016 drafted the appeal and got the accompanying affidavit attested at Bilaspur on 5th May, 2016 itself. The application is duly supported by an affidavit. No reply to application has been filed nor intended to be filed.
Heard. Taking into consideration the fact that the delay has sufficiently explained and for the reasons that the applicant
No.1 is old age and under shock due to death of her son. The delay in filing the appeal is sufficiently explained, which was neither intentional nor willful, but was beyond the control of the applicants, so the delay is required to be condoned to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the delay of 249 days in filling the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
FAO No. __________of 2016
Appeal be registered.
Notice. Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Issue separate notice to other respondents returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within a week. List thereafter.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge
24th May, 2017
(subhash)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 249 days in filing the appeal is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the explanation of advanced age and shock warrants condonation of delay to meet ends of justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chander Bhusan Barowalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
