Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil revision application filed by the applicants (original defendants) challenging an order dated 30.9.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Wardha in MARJE No.86/2012, whereby the delay in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2008 in Special Civil Suit No.104/2002 was condoned. The respondents (original plaintiffs) had filed the appeal beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The applicants contended that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay, as the respondents approached the Advocate only on 9.7.2008, well after the expiry of the limitation period. The respondents argued that the delay was due to the negligence of their Advocate. The High Court held that sufficient cause must be shown to have arisen before the expiry of the limitation period, and mere negligence of the Advocate without any diligence on the part of the litigant does not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court emphasized that the litigant has a duty to exercise diligence in prosecuting the remedy. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the delay condonation application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The respondents failed to show sufficient cause for delay of 90 days in filing appeal, as they approached the Advocate only after expiry of limitation period and merely blamed the Advocate for negligence - Held that negligence of Advocate without any diligence on part of litigant does not constitute sufficient cause (Paras 4-6). B) Civil Procedure Code - Appeal - Limitation - Duty of Litigant - The litigant has a duty to exercise diligence in prosecuting remedy available under law, and cannot shift entire blame on Advocate - Held that the Appellate Court erred in condoning delay without considering this aspect (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court was justified in condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the ground of negligence of the Advocate, without the respondents showing sufficient cause for the delay.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.9.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Wardha in MARJE No.86/2012 is set aside. The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.
Law Points
- Sufficient cause for condonation of delay must be shown to have arisen before expiry of limitation period
- mere negligence of advocate is not sufficient cause
- litigant has duty to exercise diligence in prosecuting remedy
