Single judge commercial court dismissed an application to condone a delay of 678 days in filing a civil miscellaneous appeal under the Limitation Act, finding no sufficient cause for the lapse and no substantial merits in the appeal itself.
Application for condonation of delay and the pending appeal were 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:29675]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 981/2019
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lalit Kumar Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gurjar Mr. Vinay Kothari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
14/09/2023
The present civil miscellaneous appeal is listed in Defects category today. As per office report, the appeal is time barred by 678 days and the appellant has preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
[2023:RJ-JD:29675]
[CMA-981/2019]
(2 of 3)
after receiving the certified copy of the judgment dated 22.02.2017, the same was sent to legal department of the school and the appellant was instructed to file an appeal against the said judgment. Thereafter, the appellant took steps and filed the present appeal. Thus, it is prayed that the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned.
(3 of 3)
[2023:RJ-JD:29675]
[CMA-981/2019]
“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
71-CPG/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 678 days in filing the appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether sufficient cause exists to prevent the appellants from filing the appeal within the limitation period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Basawraj v. The Special Land Acquisition OfficerRelied on¶23
Basawraj v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Adarsh Vidhya Mandir School, Through Its Director/ Principal - Shri Suvalal @ Ved Prakash
Rajeev
Naresh
Icici Lombard Insurance Company Ltd.
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
