2008 AIR SCW 6025 ::(2008) 2 CLR 646 (SC) ::(2009) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 787 ::(2008) 4 CivilCourtC 503 ::(2009) 1 All RentCas 7 ::2008 (8) SCC 321 ::(2008) 4 RecCivR 408 ::(2008) 11 Scale 96 ::(2009) 74 All LR 69 ::(2008) 3 All WC 3009 ::(2009) 1 CgLJ 73 ::(2009) 1 MPLJ 510 ::(2009) 2 Mah LJ 1 ::(2009) 3 Mad LW 528 ::(2008) 6 Mad LJ 822 ::(2008) 4 Ker LT 391 ::(2008) 4 Raj LW 3228 ::(2009) 1 LandLR 76 ::AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 886 ::(2008) ILR(ker) 4 SC 1

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Kerala)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. V. Raveendran, Lokeshwar Singh Panta , JJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.22 R.9— Abatement of suit - Setting aside of - Considerations. The principles applicable in considering applications for setting aside abatement are as follows : (i) The words "sufficient cause" in section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. (ii) In consideing reasons for condonation of delay, Courts are liberal with reference to applications for setting aside abatement, than other cases. Courts tend to set aside abatement and decide matter on merits, rather than terminate appeal on ground of abatement. (iii) Decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. (iv) Extent or degree of leniency to be shown by a Court depends on nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. For example, Courts view delays in making applications in a pending appeal more leniently than delays in institution of an appeal. Courts view applications relating to lawyer's lapses more leniently than applications relating to litigant's lapses. (v) Want of 'deligence' or 'inaction' can be attributed to an ....