Summary
The Court set aside rejection of a second appeal on limitation. The appellant produced documents explaining his changed address after the first appeal was transferred, while the respondent relied on contrary address material. Rejecting the explanation without enquiry or a finding disbelieving it was unjustified. A lenient view was warranted in the circumstances of appellate listing and communication with counsel. The High Court was to consider admission on a substantial question of law; the specific-performance dispute remained undecided.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly rejected the explanation for the 650-day delay without examining the conflicting address material.
- What proceedings should follow after setting aside dismissal on limitation.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The remitted second appeal still required the High Court to determine whether a substantial question of law warranted admission. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Held
- Both parties produced material concerning the appellant’s address. Without enquiry or a finding rejecting his explanation, the High Court was not justified in refusing condonation. The circumstances of transferred appellate proceedings and communication with counsel warranted a lenient view on this record. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Setting aside the limitation dismissal did not itself admit the second appeal or decide specific performance. The High Court was requested to consider admission expeditiously, preferably within one month, and, if admitted, dispose of it within six months of communication. All merits remained open. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal disposed of; High Court limitation-dismissal order set aside. Expedited consideration of admission and conditional merits disposal requested, with no opinion on the merits and no order as to costs.