Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the recall application should be allowed on the ground that the earlier appeal was filed beyond the statutory period without a separate written application for condonation of delay.
Analysis: The appeal was found to be delayed only marginally and, after excluding the time taken for obtaining the certified copy, the delay was treated as falling within the grace period prescribed for condonation. The absence of any objection to limitation at the relevant stage was treated as significant, and the record was viewed as supporting a bona fide misunderstanding arising from the Registry note. The Tribunal further held that a written application for condonation is not indispensable where relief can otherwise be granted under the law of limitation.
Conclusion: The recall prayer was rejected and the delay-based challenge to the earlier order was not accepted.
Final Conclusion: The order dated 23.05.2025 was left undisturbed, and the application seeking recall was dismissed for want of merit.
Ratio Decidendi: A short delay within the condonable period may be treated as condoned where no timely objection to limitation was raised and prejudice is not shown, and a written application for condonation is not mandatory under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.