9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the failure of the first appellate Court to afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to meet objections regarding limitation or to move an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Judgment Details: Issue 1: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,455/- which was decreed by the trial Judge. The defendant appealed to the District Judge, Ujjain, but the appeal was dismissed as being filed beyond the period of limitation without allowing for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court, after hearing both parties, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, remanding the case to the lower appellate Court for a decision on merits. Issue 2: The High Court referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal [1955] 2 SCR 1, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the need to avoid overly technical interpretations that hinder justice. Applying this principle, the High Court held that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned, as the appellant had shown a sufficient cause for the delay. The Court stressed that the right of appeal is crucial and should not be denied based on technicalities. Issue 3: The High Court criticized the lower appellate Court for not providing the appellant with an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation. The Court highlighted the duty of the appellate Court to allow the appellant to explain any delay and seek condonation, ensuring procedural fairness and the right to be heard. The High Court set aside the appellate order on the ground of the Court's failure to follow proper procedure. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal was within limitation and remanding the case for a decision on merits by the lower appellate Court. The Court directed the lower Court to decide the matter promptly and issued instructions for the parties to appear before the lower appellate Court. Despite the absence of the respondent in the appeal, the lower appellate Court was directed to issue a fresh notice for the hearing before deciding on the merits. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
