Summary
The Supreme Court upheld refusal to condone a 349-day delay in appealing an ex parte decree. The claimed date of first knowledge was contradicted by participation in the suit and an earlier objection expressly referring to the decree. Although one High Court observation misread the affidavit, that error did not affect the independently supported finding of negligence and incorrect disclosure. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Issues
- Whether the explanation established sufficient cause for the delayed appeal.
- Whether the High Court’s inaccurate observation required reversal despite other evidence of prior knowledge.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963The explanation did not establish sufficient cause: the claimed first-knowledge date was contradicted by the record and the applicants had negligently failed to pursue the proceedings. (¶¶ 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Held
- The High Court’s statement about the appellant’s stay in Lucknow did not reflect the affidavit, but that particular error did not undermine the overall correctness of refusing condonation. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The suit’s order sheets recorded the parties’ participation and knowledge that the earlier stay had ended. More decisively, the appellants’ November 2012 objection referred to and challenged the decree, contradicting the claimed first knowledge in May 2013. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Having earlier obtained a remand and opportunities to defend the old suit, the appellants were required to pursue it diligently. The concurrent findings of negligence and incorrect facts in the condonation application disclosed no perversity warranting interference. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The appeal was dismissed without costs. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed; refusal to condone the 349-day delay upheld. No costs.