Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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

 

Similar News