The court dismisses an appeal and an application for condonation of limitation delay of 738 days due to lack of sufficient and plausible explanation for the delay, relying on Apex Court precedents.
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was dismissed; appeal dismissed.
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.
[2023:RJ-JD:25105]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 138/2014
Smt Nausar
----Appellant
Versus
Smt Ramu Devi And Ors.
| ----Respondents | |
|---|---|
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera for Mr. SandeepSaruparia |
| For Respondent(s) | : -- |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
07/08/2023
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred for condonation of delay. Service of notice of the application was complete on respondents no.1, 2 & 4 but that of respondent no.3 was received with a report that she has died. No steps qua deceased respondent no.3 were taken and therefore, vide order dated 11.07.2023, the appeal was ordered to have abated against respondent no.3.
The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as filed is
reproduced hereunder:
2. That the appellant never personally served the notices of the proceeding of drawing of the final decree. The suit is decided ex party, without considering the fact that suit property is not partible.
3. That appellant got the information of the pendency of the execution proceeding, when decree holder
(2 of 3)
[2023:RJ-JD:25105]
[CFA-138/2014]
approached her to take the possession of the suit property and immediately, the present appeal filed. The delay is occurred in bonafide belief; therefore, the same is liable to be condoned.
It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the delay in filing of the appeal may kindly be condoned.”
Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC
556 ; held as under :
(3 of 3)
[2023:RJ-JD:25105]
[CFA-138/2014]
discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise discretion judiciously.”
stand dismissed .
(REKHA BORANA),J
23-Vij/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 738 days in filing the civil first appeal deserves condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
Whether the averments regarding belated knowledge of execution proceedings constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs Reddy Sridevi & Ors.Relied on¶27
Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs Reddy Sridevi & Ors. (AIR 2022 SC 332) · Who else cites this
P.K. Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala and Anr.Relied on¶28
P.K. Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt Nausar
Smt Ramu Devi And Ors.
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
