Bombay High Court Dismisses Condonation of Delay in Second Appeal Due to Lack of Sufficient Cause. Delay of 3 Years, 3 Months and 11 Days Not Explained with Affidavit of Each Applicant.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 19
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, Chetan Goradhandas Khumbawat and Chetan Jayantilal Shah, along with a partnership firm, had filed Regular Civil Suit No.93 of 2008 for declaration, injunction, and specific performance based on an agreement dated 25 March 1993. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appeal was also dismissed. The applicants then sought to file a Second Appeal but with a delay of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days. They filed Interim Application No.253 of 2021 seeking condonation of this delay. The applicants claimed that after the dismissal of the first appeal, they were pursuing a remedy before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and that the certified copy of the judgment was misplaced. The court found the explanation vague and lacking in particulars. The application was supported by an affidavit of only one applicant, which was held insufficient. The court dismissed the application, finding no sufficient cause for the delay.

Headnote

A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The applicants sought condonation of delay of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days in filing the Second Appeal. The court held that the explanation for delay was vague and not supported by an affidavit of each applicant. The delay was not satisfactorily explained, and the application was dismissed. (Paras 1-6)

B) Civil Procedure - Affidavit in Support - Order 19 Rule 3 CPC - The court noted that the application was supported by an affidavit of only one applicant, which was insufficient. The requirement of separate affidavits from each applicant was emphasized to establish sufficient cause. (Para 5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the delay of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days in filing the Second Appeal should be condoned on the grounds stated by the applicants.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the Interim Application No.253 of 2021, refusing to condone the delay.

Law Points

  • Condonation of delay
  • Sufficient cause
  • Affidavit requirement
  • Limitation Act
  • Section 5
  • Order 41 Rule 3A CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 78

Interim Application No.253 of 2021 in Second Appeal (St.) No.96361 of 2020

2023-09-13

Vinay Joshi

2023:BHC-AS:27676

Mr. Manoj Bhatt for the Applicants, Mr. Ashutosh Gole for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11

Chetan Goradhandas Khumbawat and Chetan Jayantilal Shah

Jaywant Moreshwar Patil and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil application for condonation of delay in filing Second Appeal.

Remedy Sought

Condonation of delay of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days in filing the Second Appeal.

Filing Reason

The applicants claimed that after dismissal of the first appeal, they were pursuing a remedy before NCDRC and the certified copy was misplaced.

Previous Decisions

The trial court dismissed Regular Civil Suit No.93 of 2008; the first appeal was also dismissed.

Issues

Whether the delay of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days in filing the Second Appeal should be condoned.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants argued that they were pursuing remedy before NCDRC and the certified copy was misplaced. Respondents opposed the application, stating the explanation was vague and not supported by proper affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi

The explanation for delay was vague and not supported by an affidavit of each applicant. The delay was not satisfactorily explained, and therefore, no sufficient cause was shown for condonation.

Judgment Excerpts

The explanation offered by the Applicants is vague and does not disclose sufficient cause. The application is supported by an affidavit of only one applicant, which is insufficient.

Procedural History

The applicants filed Regular Civil Suit No.93 of 2008 which was dismissed. The first appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, they sought to file a Second Appeal with a delay of 3 years, 3 months and 11 days, leading to the present application for condonation of delay.

Acts & Sections

  • Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 3A, Order 19 Rule 3
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Condonation of Delay in Second Appeal Due to Lack of Sufficient Cause. Delay of 3 Years, 3 Months and 11 Days Not Explained with Affidavit of Each Applicant.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Tender Notification for Food Supply to Hostels. Tender notification held not contrary to Rule 17(1)(b) of Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, 2000 as it was issued by the De...