Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
High Court Appeal No. 21 of 1985, decided on 11th March, 1985.
---S.1--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 6--Delay in filing suit- Condonation of--Suit under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 admittedly was instituted by plaintiff beyond period of one year from occurrence of accident--Delay in filing suit was sought to be condoned by plaintiff on ground that he being father of deceased fell ill and became insane due to shock of news of death of his son--Plea of plaintiff having not been supported by any medical evidence, delay, held, could not be condoned merely on assertion of plaintiff in that respect--Plaint was rightly rejected in circumstances.
S.S. Hamid for the Appellant.
--This appeal is from the judgment dated 29-10-1984, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.467 of 1982, whereby he rejected the plaint as being barred by time. The suit was under Fatal Accident Act in respect of the death of the son of the appellant in an accident which took place on 3-3-1981. But the suit was filed on 7-8-1982, beyond a period of one year therefore, it was clearly time-barred. However, two applications were made one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the other under 6 of the Limitation Act.
So far as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, learned Single Judge after perusing two affidavits filed in support of the applications came to the conclusion that the statements made therein are not only inconsistent and contrary to each other but they are not supported by any medical evidence in support of the plea that the appellant became insane. The learned Single Judge observed that mere fact that due to the shock of the news of the death of his son the appellant fell ill is not enough to enlarge time under Section 6 of the Limitation Act for institution of the proceedings in Court.
We find that the observation of the learned Single Judge are correct and do not call for any interference. The suit was clearly time-bared and therefore, the plaint was rightly rejected. Consequently was dismissed this appeal in limine.
H. B. T. /M-339/K Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer