Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

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