AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Appeal is filed against the order dated 10.09.2015 passed by Karnataka State Con No.1 was partly allowed.
Alongwith the Appeal, IA/11506/2017, an application for condonation of delay of 692 days ha
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel f Appellant. The Complainant filed Execution Petition No.8/2015 against Respondents Nos.2 and 4 as Commission wherein execution proceedings qua Respondents Nos.2 and 4 were stayed. On account satisfy the decree. On 20.03.2017, when the Appellant received notice of First Appeal No.980/2015, No.8/2015 filed against them before the State Commission. Learned Counsel submitted that on 28.04 this, the Executing Court directed the Appellant to pay the entire amount. Thereafter, the Appellant d Delhi which could be done by 25.07.2017. The Appellant sent the documents to the Advocate in Del thereafter Appeal was filed on 01.08.2017 with an inordinate delay. Learned Counsel also submitted
Learned Counsel for Respondents Nos.2 to 4 submitted that they had not received even a singl satisfied by the Appellant. He submitted that the Appeal qua Respondents Nos.2 to 4 is not maintain
Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant submitted that the Appeal filed by Opposi the Appeal filed after expiry of more than one and a half years is not maintainable.
Main ground taken by the Appellant for condonation of delay is that they were under the impr order dated 10.09.2015, which reads as follows:-
“The above complaint is partly allowed holding that that the complainant is entitled f However, OP Nos. 2 to 4 are at liberty to exercise their right if any against OP No.1
From the above it is clear that the State Commission had directed that the Complainant was en no doubt that the decree was to be satisfied by all the Opposite Parties including the Appellant. The
In para 7 of the application for condonation of delay, it is admitted by the Appellant that they h se dispute between the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 on one hand and the Respondents Nos.2 to 4/O only concerned that the Appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay, which the Appellant failed to
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that party who has not acted diligently or remain ina described the test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not. The Ho
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the s in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”
Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under:
“It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a pa jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing furthe should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration o after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court ma
The burden is on the applicant to show that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The expre 6510, as under:
“Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the pu means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bo circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to e “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnis purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. V. Bhootnath Banerjee &Or Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412).
It is a settle legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party bu statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to reliev enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim “dura lexsedlex” which means “t
a statute.
………..
The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented i approach the court within limitation . In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want o No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any conditi prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification
Also in the case of “ Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for con in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes wi
In a recent judgment the Hon’ble Supreme court observed that c University of Delhi vs. Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.9488 has held as under: -
“The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party na case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the a not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the de
…….
That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches would
In view of the above, we find no sufficient ground to condone the delay. The application for c