Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

 

Latest Legal News