Suit for recovery – Leave to defend – Separate application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act may not have been absolutely necessary whether or not to condone the delay -- Once some reasoning was given in the application seeking leave to defend the suit, court was required to go into the grounds for delay, consider them and then pass a reasoned order accepting or rejecting the said reasons.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.01.2020

Delay of 312 days in filing appeal – Submitted that there was construction going on in the office of the filing counsel and as such the file was erroneously misplaced and as such there has been a delay in filing of the present appeal -- Explanation for condoning 312 days delay not worthy of acceptance -- Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2020

Cheque bounce case -- Delay of 4 days in filing of complaint – Cognizance stage – Interpretation of -- Complaint was filed on 18.8.2009 -- Magistrate took the cognizance and issued the process -- Notice of accusation was issued to accused on 14.2.2010 i.e. about six months later -- Case was then adjourned for the evidence of the complainant -- It was on 28.10.2011 i.e. nearly after one year and eight months of taking of cognizance of the complaint by the Court when the case was fixed for the evidence of the complainant, that an application for condonation of delay of four days was filed – Whether when the complaint is fixed for the evidence of the complainant, it is to be treated as the cognizance stage? -- The obvious reply is 'NO' -- Ld. Court below fell in error when he took a view that application for condonation of delay can be filed at any stage -- Stage of cognizance of the complaint was already over much earlier and therefore, the complainant could not take the shelter of proviso to Section 142(b) of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.03.2015