Pursuing case before wrong forum/Court --- Condonation of delay --- " Sufficient cause " --- Due diligence and good faith --- Initial burden --- Scope - Suit instituted by the plaintiff ( appellant ) was dismissed by the Civil Court , however , Instead of filing appeal before the High Court , he filed appeal before the District Court which remained pending for about one year and finally the appeal was returned under O.VII , R.10 of C.P.C .--- Appellant/plaintiff while preferring appeal before the High/Appellate Court also moved an application for excluding the period of pursing the remedy before the District Court --- Validity --- Where the plaint was returned under O.VII , R. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code , 1908 , for its representation before the Court of competent jurisdiction , for all intent and purposes , it would be treated as a fresh institution --- Application for excluding the period of pursing the remedy before the Court lacking jurisdiction , in the present case , was instituted under S.5 of the Limitation Act , 1908 (' the Limitation Act ') which required a litigant to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the stipulated time period- In order to establish " sufficient cause " , there was no mathematical formula or hard and fast rule that could be followed , however , although S.14 of the Limitation Act had no direct application to the appeals but the principles enumerated therein could be taken into the consideration by the ( Appellate ) Court while ascertaining the availability of ' sufficient cause ' for condonation of delay --- Section 14 of the Limitation Act reflected that it was incumbent upon the litigant , seeking exclusion of time period for pursuing remedy in forum without jurisdiction , to plead the facts to justify the grant of relief and by reasonably demonstrating due diligence and good faith in pursuing the matter before the Court having no jurisdiction to adjudicate --- Initial burden , to show the said elements for seeking to exclude the period consumed in prosecuting case before the forum without jurisdiction , was on the applicant pleading such relief --- Applicant / appellant miserably failed to plead the elements of S. 14 of the Limitation Act --- No plea as to the bona fide on the part of the applicant / appellant or any due diligence on his part had been taken in the application Applicant / appellant had failed to give any justification or to argue a to due diligence adopted by the appellant for about one year of pursuing the remedy in wrong forum --- Conduct of the applicant / appellant depicted carelessness , lack of required diligence and callous approach on the basis of which condonation of delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act was sought , without even discharging the initial burden or even pleading necessary ingredients --- Application for enlargement of time by excluding the time period of about one year for pursuing remedy before wrong forum , filed by the appellant , had no substance , therefore , the same was dismissed .
Application for enlargement of time by excluding the time period of pursuing the case before wrong forum / Court --- Condonation of delay --- " Sufficient cause " --- Suit instituted by the plaintiff ( appellant ) was dismissed by ...............
R.F.A. No.51 of 2023
Application for enlargement of time by excluding the time period of pursuing the case before wrong forum / Court --- Condonation of delay --- " Sufficient cause " --- Suit instituted by the plaintiff ( appellant ) was dismissed by the Civil Court , however , Instead of filing appeal before the High Court , he filed appeal before the District Court which remained pending for about one year and finally the appeal was returned under O.VII , R.10 of the C.P.C .--- Appellant / plaintiff while preferring appeal before the High / Appellate Court also moved an application for excluding the period of pursing the remedy before the District Court --- Contention of the applicant / appellant that the cases should be decided on the basis of merits rather than technicalities --- Held , that the contention of the applicant / appellant was misconceived as availing the remedy within the period provided by law was not merely a technicality --- Section 5 or S.14 of the Limitation Act , 1908 , was not intended to add premium to the carelessness or to validate lack of vigilance and required caution by a litigant --- Application for enlargement of time by excluding the time period of about one year for pursuing remedy before wrong forum , filed by the appellant , had no substance , therefore , the same was dismissed.
R.F.A. No.51 of 2023
AYAZ MEHMOOD versus MUSADAQ RIAZ and 2 others
2024 C LC 357
0 Comments