Section 5
The expression "sufficient cause" should, be considered with pragmatism in justice- oriented approach rather than the technical detection of "sufficient cause" for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and require adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merit unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the Government vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of "sufficient cause". Bangladesh vs Abdur Sobhan [73 DLR (AD) 1]
Limitation Act (ix of 1908)
Section 5
The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an application since he is a person legally injured while the State is impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Bangladesh vs Abdur Sobhan [73 DLR (AD) 1]
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Section 5
There is gainsaying that the no Government decisions are taken by officers’ agencies proverbially at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from 1 table to table and keeping it on the table for considerable time causing delay, intentional or otherwise, is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape on the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. Bangladesh vs Abdur Sobhan [73 DLR (AD) 1]
An ex parte order admitting a time barred appeal is subject to reconsideration at the hearing of the appeal at the respondent's instance because such an order made in the absence of the respondent and without notice to him purports to deprive him of a valuable right, for, it put in peril the finality of the decision in his favour and if he is precluded from questioning its propriety it would amount to a denial of justice. "It must, therefore, in common fairness be regarded", their Lordships said, "a tacit term of an order (admitting time‑barred appeal ex parte) that though unqualified in expression it should be open to reconsideration at the instance of the party prejudicially affected; and this view is sanctioned by the practice of the courts in India. 46 DLR (AD) (1994) 13
Condonation
of delay
When
the High Court Division is satisfied with the ground for delay in filing the
appeal, there is nothing for the Appellate Division to interfere with the
discretion. Nurul Huq Vs. The State 13BLD (AD) 199
Condonation
of delay
Condonation
of delay in filing an appeal is essentially the discretion of the appellate
Court but such discretion must be exercised judicially. Condonation of delay
exparte without hearing the State or the complainant is deprecated. Minhaz A.
Chowdhury Vs. ManzurulHuq and another, 16BLD(HCD)154
Condonation
of unusual delay
A
criminal appeal was filed 1649 days after the prescribed period of the
limitation. The petitioner contended that the trial was held in absentia beyond
his knowledge and he had no occasion to see the notification in the newspapers.
No warrant or proclamation and attachment were executed at his village address.
Under
these circumstances the High Court Division condoned the unusual delay holding
that there was sufficient cause preventing the appellant petitioner from filing
the appeal in time and he had no intentional laches-Limitation Act, 1908;
Section. 5
Rahmat
Ali Vs. the State, 16BLD (HCD) 589
Condonation
of delay
Poverty,
helplessness and absence of any male member in the family to file the appeal
earlier were considered mitigating circum- stances and compassionate grounds
for con- donation of delay of 735 days. Shamsul Huq Vs. The State, 15BLD (HCD)
276
Condonation
of delay
Prayer
for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal is required to be allowed--
Limitation Act, 1908, S. 5
Mahirun
Nessa Vs. The State, 13 BLD (HCD) 170
Condonation
of delay
Section
5 of the Limitation Act enables a Court to admit an appeal after the period of
limitation prescribed therefor when the appellant satisfies the Court that he
had sufficient cause for not preferring it within the prescribed period.
Sree Sachindra
Chandra Mondal alias Sarker Vs. The Assistant Custodian of Vested and
Non-Resident Properties (Land and Building) and Additional Deputy Com-
missioner (Revenue), Dhaka, and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 583
Ref:
1970 SCMR 558 (562); BLD 1986 (AD)180-Cited
Condonation
Delay
Reasonable
explanation must be given for each and every day's delay in as much as after
the period of limitation, the right of the other party accrues in the matter
and as such it should not be lightly dealt with.
Bangladesh
Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs. M/S. Nazma Transport Company, 13 BLD
(HCD) 31
The Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Section 5
That while the learned Advocate claims
to have not been Present in Dhaka on 7.2.1996, he being in Noakhli but in the
order book dated 7.2.1996 when the matter came up in the Daily Cause list his
appearance was there when the order was passed allowing 2 weeks time for
compliance of the office note... years and the petitioner having filed to make
out case for recalling the order of dis- charge the application for restoration
was rejected. Administrator Gammon Bangladesh Ltd -vs- ToW Mia (Fazlul Haque,
J) (Civil) IADC 427