9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay in filing a Civil Appeal.
Details of the Judgment: 1. The case involved a Civil Revision Application in Latur regarding the interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay in filing a Civil Appeal. 2. The original plaintiffs filed a suit for partition which was decreed ex parte, leading to a delay of 104 days in challenging the decree by the original defendants. 3. The Additional District Judge rejected the application for condonation of delay citing negligence and failure to prove sufficient cause. 4. The petitioner argued that a compromise between the parties caused the delay, while the respondents supported the rejection order. 5. The Court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in interpreting "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice. 6. The Court criticized the pedantic approach of the Additional District Judge in requiring an explanation for each day of delay, highlighting the need for a pragmatic and common-sense approach. 7. Referring to the case law, the Court stressed that substantial justice should prevail over technical flaws, and delay should not be presumed deliberate. 8. The Court noted that the rules of limitation are meant to prevent dilatory tactics and that the acceptability of the explanation, not the length of delay, is crucial. 9. The Court found that the petitioners had provided sufficient evidence of a settlement, justifying the delay in filing the appeal. 10. Consequently, the Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, quashed the previous order, condoned the delay, and directed the District Judge to proceed with the Regular Civil Appeal promptly.
|
