Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.IX,R.8

(a) Counsel and client--- ----Negligence of counsel---Effect---Duty of client would be to keep himself abreast of proceedings in his case and remain in touch with his counsel for such purpose, otherwise he would have to suffer for negligence of his counsel being his agent---Principles. It is the duty of a party to litigation to keep himself abreast of the proceedings and progress of the matter and it is also his duty to remain in touch with his counsel. If his counsel, for any reason, is unable to contact him or inform him, about the progress of his case, then the party should personally keep track of the same as it is he who should suffer in case any adverse order is passed in the matter against him. Negligence of counsel is the negligence of party because he acts merely as an agent. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 5---Application for condonation of delay---Illness of counsel, ground of---Validity---Valuable rights accrued to opponent party on expiry of limitation could not be taken away without making out a case of sufficient cause explaining delay of each day---Mere illness of counsel would neither absolve party of his responsibility to prosecute his case properly nor constitute sufficient cause to condone delay---Principles. In civil matters, on expiry of limitation, valuable rights accrue to the other side which cannot be taken away lightly except on making out a case of sufficient cause explaining the delay of each day. Mere illness of counsel does not absolve the party from his responsibility to prosecute his case properly. His failure to pursue the case with due diligence will not entitle him to seek indulgence of the Court. Negligence of counsel is the negligence of party because he acts merely as an agent. A party wishing to take advantage of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 must satisfy the Court that it has not been negligent rather pursuing his case with due diligence and care. Negligence on the part of the counsel does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay where valuable rights have accrued in favour of the other party. While seeking condonation of delay the applicant has to explain each day's delay. (c) Civil…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492