https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219894 Delay in filing the first appeal against the order confirming sale was condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because the delay was not treated as inordinate or warranting a hypertechnical refusal, and the appellant's reliance on counsel and absence of deliberate neglect weighed against rejection on limitation grounds. The Court further held that, where no mala fides were shown and no substantial prejudice resulted, disputes should ordinarily be decided on merits. The objections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, which had been dismissed for default after closure of evidence, were therefore restored and remitted to the executing court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, subject to costs. en-us Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219894 Delay in filing the first appeal against the order confirming sale was condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because the delay was not treated as inordinate or warranting a hypertechnical refusal, and the appellant's reliance on counsel and absence of deliberate neglect weighed against rejection on limitation grounds. The Court further held that, where no mala fides were shown and no substantial prejudice resulted, disputes should ordinarily be decided on merits. The objections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, which had been dismissed for default after closure of evidence, were therefore restored and remitted to the executing court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, subject to costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219894