Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Bombay Delay can’t be condoned, when a party is found to be negligent, or have not acted diligently or remained inactive MANU/MH/2936/2023 - (31 Jul 2023) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Sanjay Vs. Vinayak</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Appellant/original defendant has challenged the order passed by learned District Judge. The Appellant had filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1014 days in filing Appeal. The first appellate Court has rejected the application. The substantial question of law raised in present case is whether the appellate Court is justified in refusing to condone delay of 1014 days in filing the appeal. 
The first appellate Court has held that the appellant has lodged the application on the false grounds that he has not received suit summons; has not engaged an Advocate and that he had no knowledge of the suit till he received notice from Patwari. The first appellate Court then noted that the judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court on 25th January, 2011. The limitation therefore commenced from the said date. Thus, there is an enormous delay of 1014 days in filing the appeal. 
In the case of Basawraj and another vs. Special L and Acquisition Officer, the Apex Court has observed 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 bona fide 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 with the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. 
The first appellate Court has rightly noted that the law laid down by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the present case. The party here i.e. the present appellant, is not only negligent and lacking bona fides but, has put forth a false plea and, therefore, application came to be rejected. 
There is error of law in the impugned order. The inference drawn by the first appellate Court is well-founded, as the same is based on the evidence adduced before it and is a well-reasoned inference. The first appellate Court is therefore fully justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1014 days in filing the first Appeal. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. There is no merit in the Appeal. Appeal dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Delay, Condonation, Refusal</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>