This revision petition challenged the Additional District Judge's order condoning delay due to medical illness. The High Court found the appellant proven to have cancer and heart disease and dismissed the revision.
Revision petition dismissed in limine as no error of law was found in the impugned order allowing condonation of delay.
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.
Civil Revision No.4834 of 2010 - 1 -
**********
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4834 of 2010 Date of decision:03.08.2010.
Jagdish Rai ...Petitioner
Versus Surinder Kumar and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This revision petition is directed against order dated 07.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala by which an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [for short “the Act”] for condonation of delay in filing of the first appeal has been allowed. The learned Court below has found that respondent No.1/applicant was suffering from cancer as per medical prescription slips (Ex.A1 to Ex.A26) and was under treatment, therefore, delay of one and half month in filing of appeal was found to be duly explained and the reason assigned was found to be “sufficient cause”.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
Civil Revision No.4834 of 2010 - 2 -
**********
argued that sufferance of the respondent No.1/applicant from heart and cancer is not a sufficient ground to condone the delay.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance. Firstly, the delay in filing the appeal is marginal and secondly, the appellant has proved on record with documentary evidence, i.e. Ex.A1 to Ex.A26, that he is suffering not only from heart ailment but also from cancer. Therefore, in my view, this is a “sufficient cause” for the delay which has been caused in filing of the appeal.
In view of above, I do not find any error of law in the impugned order and as such this revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine.
August 03, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether suffering from heart and cancer constitutes sufficient cause to condone delay in filing a first appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagdish Rai
Surinder Kumar
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
