Case Note & Summary
This judgment concerns a civil application filed by the applicants (original defendants in counterclaim) seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal from order against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge-9, Aurangabad in R.C.S. No. 241 of 2005. The delay involved was 30 days. The applicants stated that after the judgment was passed, they contacted their advocate to obtain a copy, but due to the illness of applicant No. 1 and preoccupation with family matters, they could not file the appeal in time. However, no affidavit or medical certificate was produced to support these claims. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the delay was intentional and the reasons were not sufficient. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the applicants failed to make out a sufficient cause for the delay. The court noted that the explanation was vague and unsupported by any evidence. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal from order was also dismissed as time-barred. The court emphasized that while a liberal approach is warranted in condonation matters, the party seeking condonation must still provide a plausible explanation supported by material evidence.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - Applicants sought condonation of 30 days delay in filing appeal, alleging illness of one applicant and preoccupation with family matters - No affidavit or medical certificate produced to substantiate claim - Held that mere statement without supporting evidence does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants have made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the appeal from order.
Final Decision
The Civil Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal From Order St. No. 10172 of 2011 is also dismissed as time-barred.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- Liberal approach
- Affidavit evidence
- Medical certificate
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (09) 21
Civil Application No. 6343 of 2011 in Appeal From Order St. No. 10172 of 2011
Mr. P.F. Patni for Applicants, Mr. A.D. Kasliwal for Respondent
Bhausaheb S/o Hiraman Mokale, Gautam S/o Hiraman Mokale, Anna S/o Hiraman Mokale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil application for condonation of delay in filing appeal from order against judgment and decree in a regular civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Condonation of 30 days delay in filing the appeal from order.
Filing Reason
Applicants alleged that after judgment, they contacted advocate for copy, but due to illness of applicant No.1 and preoccupation with family matters, they could not file appeal in time.
Previous Decisions
Judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge-9, Aurangabad in R.C.S. No. 241 of 2005.
Issues
Whether the applicants have made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the appeal from order.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants submitted that after judgment, they contacted their advocate to obtain copy, but due to illness of applicant No.1 and preoccupation with family matters, they could not file appeal in time.
Respondent opposed the application, stating that the delay was intentional and the reasons given were not sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi
For condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant must make out sufficient cause by providing a plausible explanation supported by evidence such as affidavit or medical certificate. Mere statements without supporting material do not constitute sufficient cause.
Judgment Excerpts
It is stated in the application that, after passing of the judgment and decree, they contacted their advocate to obtain the copy, but due to illness of applicant No.1 and preoccupation with family matters, they could not file the appeal in time.
The applicants have not filed any affidavit in support of the application, nor have they produced any medical certificate to show that applicant No.1 was ill.
In the result, the Civil Application stands dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal From Order St. No. 10172 of 2011 also stands dismissed.
Procedural History
The applicants filed Civil Application No. 6343 of 2011 in the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal From Order St. No. 10172 of 2011 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge-9, Aurangabad in R.C.S. No. 241 of 2005. The application was heard and dismissed on 27th September 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
