High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 11 JH CK 1900

Nepal Pandit, son of Late Raghunath Pandit vs Gopal Pandit, son of Late Raghunath Pandit

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 14 November 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 700 Of 2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 355 words

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

1.

Misc. Appeal No.51 of 2020 was dismissed for default on 28.07.2021 due to non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 23.06.2021.

2.

Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of the said appeal under Order XLI Rule 19 of the CPC after condoning the delay of 1131 days in preferring restoration application for which a separate I.A. No.10878 of 2025 has been filed.

3.

It is submitted by learned counsel that miscellaneous appeal was preferred against dismissal of the probate application and the petitioner was not duly informed by the learned conducting counsel with regard to dismissal of the suit which resulted in delay. The defect was formal in nature to mention the signature of counsel with the enrollment number after prayer portion in memo of appeal, which was to be removed within a period of four weeks and because of laches on the part of conducting counsel the petitioner, who has a good case, cannot suffer.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of opposite parties that the plea of laches on the part of counsel, cannot be the sole ground for condoning the inordinate delay of more than 1100 days.

5.

Laches on the part of the conducting counsel cannot be accepted as a basis for condoning delay exceeding 1000 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There need to be some bona fide explanation and substantial reasons, and mere lapse of time or negligence, especially when it exceeds significant periods like 1000 days, typically does not constitute a "sufficient cause" to justify condonation. The legal position emphasizes that delay must be explained by genuine causes and not by laches or negligence.

6.

If such a plea is accepted, then in all cases, delay on account of the laches on the part of the counsel can be advanced and accepted, rendering the provisions of the Limitation Act to be otiose.

7.

Instant restoration application being filed after inordinate delay without any sufficient reason for it, is devoid of any merit.

Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.