Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order IX, Rule 9 – Condonation of Delay – Not allowed – Delay in Filing Application under Order IX, Rule 7 of CPC – Exercise of Discretionary Power by Courts:
The primary question addressed in the appeal pertained to the permissibility of condoning a delay of almost 14 years in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the CPC. The Court emphasized the necessity of interpreting the term “sufficient cause” liberally to ensure the dispensation of substantial justice. It underscored that the discretionary power of courts to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, without negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on the part of the litigant.
Absence of Satisfactory Explanation for Delay – Upon scrutiny of the appellant’s application and accompanying affidavit seeking condonation of delay, the Court found no satisfactory or reasonable ground explaining the 14-year delay. It observed that the appellant’s admission of knowledge about the ex-parte order in 2011, with the application filed only in 2017, lacked justification. Furthermore, the appellant’s explanation regarding negligence of appointed advocates lacked substantiation from records, indicating gross negligence on the appellant’s part.
Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order, dismissing the appellant’s petition under Article 227. It upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the correctness of dismissing the belated claim in light of the appellant’s gross negligence. The appeal was dismissed accordingly. (Para 9, 12)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 242 SC
[2024 INSC 281]
K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) Vs. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors.
Civil Appeal No . 4785 of 2024 (Arising Out Of Slp (C) No.14974 of 2022)-Decided on 8-4-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-242-SC.pdf
