Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

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