CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law relating to Limitation
Per the Explanation to Section 5, an appellant was misled by a High Court practice in computing the period of limitation and filed late. What is the effect?
It may be sufficient cause. The Explanation to Section 5 says that being misled by an order, practice or judgment of the High Court in computing the prescribed period may amount to sufficient cause, but the court still decides; condonation is not automatic.
- AIt automatically entitles the appellant to condonation
- BIt is irrelevant to sufficient cause
- CIt may be sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5Correct
- DIt applies only if misled by the Supreme Court
Explanation
The Explanation states that being misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause. It says 'may', so condonation is not automatic.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Law relating to Limitation shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Law relating to Limitation questions
- Meera Traders files an application on a day after the prescribed period has ended. She asks the court to admit it under Section 5 of the Lim…
- Ravi filed a money suit after the prescribed period had expired. The defendant, Meena, did not raise limitation in her written statement. Wh…
- Under the Limitation Act, 1963, in an ordinary case a suit is treated as instituted on the date when:
- Ravi's lawyer argues that the Limitation Act, 1963 bars enforcement of a promise to pay a time-barred debt that Ravi made in writing, signed…
- Under Section 6, a person is a minor when the period is to be reckoned and, before that disability ceases, becomes insane. Which statement i…
- The period for filing an appeal expires on a day when the court is closed for a holiday. Under the Limitation Act, 1963, what is the positio…