25 Years Too Late: Delhi High Court Rejects Condonation of Delay in RSA Restoration Appeal

158
0
Share:
property interest free Property Worker Bail Treatment Document Medical Work Bail spDispute a Suit v Illegal Duty office Dowry Husband Parole marriage statements Financial Children Pay Property vLife PostClaims Evidence Medical delhi Goods Hindu Marriage Act Life Evidence Service Agreement CashPetitioner POCSO Property violence VIGOURA Eviction evidence BSuicide ail stability Property Advocates Samsung tax EWS Workman Delhi Delhi High Court HALDIRAM Suit Health bailDate of Decision: April 03, 2024 M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal Chargesheet bankEvidence Tobacco Payments Jail Google family non-appearance-despite-repeated-warnings-persistent-evasion-from-cbi Tribunal's Divorce Education cbi Bail Written written Disciplinary Mobile Affidavit Payment limited rape Divorce violence publication natco parole accident 25 License Cross-Examine family Maintenance public Publication Bail father Bail  specific Habitual bail OBC-NCL deed disciplinary missing property nature ews sarfaesi jail post amendment evidence jurisdiction government Candidates license Training property Cheque maintenance property 304 evidence diploma police tax divorce divorce police negligence contract disability

In a significant ruling emphasizing the importance of timely legal intervention, the Delhi High Court dismissed an application seeking restoration of a Regular Second Appeal (RSA) which was dismissed for default 25 years ago. The Court underscored the principle that “condonation of delay cannot be treated as a matter of right,” marking a stern message against undue delay in legal proceedings.

The case, titled RSA 61/1975, involved an application filed for restoration of an appeal dismissed in 1998, with the delay in filing amounting to 25 years and 2 months. The counsel for the appellant cited the demise of the original counsel handling the case as the primary reason for the delay. However, the Court found this explanation insufficient to justify the extraordinary delay.

Justice C. Hari Shankar, presiding over the matter, stated, “The averments in CM APPL. 18181/2023 do not make out any case for condonation of delay of 25 years and 2 months in filing the restoration application.” This observation was part of the Court’s ruling rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

Further, the Court drew attention to the duty of counsel in diligently tracking cases, especially those pending for years after admission by the Court. “This Court has always been lenient in restoring such proceedings if they are dismissed in default,” Justice Shankar noted, emphasizing that even with leniency, a compelling reason for the delay is essential.

The judgment also discussed the relevance of precedents in matters of condonation of delay. Justice Shankar highlighted that each case must be evaluated on its own merits, indicating that past judgments do not set a universal precedent for condoning extensive delays.

As a result of the dismissal of the condonation of delay application, the Court also dismissed the connected applications, CM APPL. 18179/2023 and CM APPL. 18180/2023, seeking restoration of RSA 61/1975 and the reopening of a contempt petition, respectively.

Date of Decision: 24th January 2024

ARI SINGH (DECEASED) THR. LR’S VS UOI

Download Judgment

Share: