RAMJI PANDEY AND ORS. versus SWARAN KALI

RAMJI PANDEY AND ORS. versus SWARAN KALI

The appellants were found negligent and lacked due diligence both in pursuing the original suit and in not heeding the respondent's early objection regarding correct appellate jurisdiction. Their conduct throughout, including failing to act promptly even after adverse orders, was not bona fide. Therefore, the benefit of condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act was not available. The High Court order refusing condonation of delay was upheld.

Parties
Appellants: Ramji Pandey and Others; Respondent: Swaran Kali
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Challenging High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Condonation of Delay, Jurisdiction of Courts, Section 5 and Section 14 Limitation Act, Order IX Rule 13 CPC
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Condonation of Delay Jurisdiction of Courts Section 5 and Section 14 Limitation Act Order IX Rule 13 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramji Pandey and Others

Appellants

Swaran Kali

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Challenging High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in filing appeal should be condoned under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963
  2. 2 Whether appellants acted with due diligence in pursuing remedies after ex parte decree

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were found negligent and lacked due diligence both in pursuing the original suit and in not heeding the respondent's early objection regarding correct appellate jurisdiction. Their conduct throughout, including failing to act promptly even after adverse orders, was not bona fide. Therefore, the benefit of condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act was not available. The High Court order refusing condonation of delay was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • No order as to costs.