Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of India


Limitation Act, 1963 (India) (Article starts after finishing Sections)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 5

In our considered opinion, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the cause shown by the appellant, which is duly proved by the documents, we are inclined to hold that the cause shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court was/is a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 554 days in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. It is accordingly condoned but it is subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No. 1. Foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The appeal (Misc. Appeal No.653/2016) is held to have been filed within limitation. It is accordingly restored to its original number. The High Court will now decide the appeal on merits expeditiously in accordance with law. .....Ummer =VS= Pottengal Subida, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 94] ....View Full Judgment

Section 5

Condonation of delay– The appellant HUDA, i.e., their officers, who were incharge of the legal cell failed to discharge their duty assigned to them promptly and with due diligence despite availability of all facilities and infrastructure. In such circumstances, the officersincharge of the case should be made answerable for the lapse on their part and make good the loss suffered by the appellantsHUDA.
A delay of 1942 days (4 years 6 months), in our view, is wholly inordinate and the cause pleaded for its condonation is equally unexplained by the appellants. In any case, the explanation given does not constitute a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was, therefore, rightly not condoned by the High Court and we concur with the finding of the High Court. …Haryana Urban Development Authority =VS= Gopi Chand Atreja, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (SC) 9] ....View Full Judgment

Section 14

The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 14 read with
Order 7 Rule 11
Election petition must be filed within a period of 30 days–
The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is a complete code for the presentation of election petitions. The statute has mandated that an election petition must be filed within a period of 30 days of the date of the declaration of results. This period cannot be extended. The provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 would clearly stand excluded. The legislature having made a specific provision, any election petition which fails to comply with the statute is liable to be dismissed. The High Court has failed to notice both the binding judgments of this Court and its own precedents on the subject, to which we have referred. The first respondent filed an election petition in the first instance to which there was an objection to maintainability under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Confronted with the objection under Order 7 Rule 11, the first respondent obviated a decision thereon by withdrawing the election petition. The grant of liberty to file a fresh election petition cannot obviate the bar of limitation. The fresh election petition filed by the first respondent was beyond the statutory period of 30 days and was hence liable to be rejected. Allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. .....Suman Devi =VS= Manisha Devi, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 48] ....View Full Judgment

Section 27 read with article 64, 65

Adverse possession–
The plea of adverse possession being essentially a plea based on facts, it was required to be proved by the party raising it on the basis of proper pleadings and evidence. The burden to prove such plea was, therefore, on the defendant who had raised it. It was, therefore, necessary for him to have discharged the burden that laid on him in accordance with law. .....Dagadabai =VS= Abbas, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 14] ....View Full Judgment