(IX OF 1908)
explanation must be given for each and everyday’s delay inasmuch as after the
period of limitation, the right of the other party accrues in the matter and as
such it should not be lightly deal with.
Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs. MIS. Nazma Transport Company, 13 BLD (HCD) 31.
5 of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable to a proceeding under
Order 41, Rule 19 C.P.C. The petitioners (in the instant case) are not entitled
to have the case restored on condonation of delay merely because the case has
been filed under Order 41, Rule 19 read with Section 151 C.P.C. inasmuch as
Section 5 has not been made applicable to a case under Order 41, Rule 19 C.
and another Vs. Hazrat Ali and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 471.
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 prescribed period.
Sachindra chandra Manual alias Sarker Vs. The Assistant Custodian of Vested and
Non-Resident Properties (Land and Building, Deputy Commissioner (Revenue),
Dhaka and Ors, 13 BLD (HCD) 583.
1970 SCMR 558 (562); BLD 1986 (AD) 180—Cited.
in the absence of as separate petition tor condonation of delay the Court can
give relief to an aggrieved party under Section 5 of the Limitation Act when
exercise of such discretion becomes necessary in the interest of justice under
Vs. Mutaleb and others, 16 BLD (HCD) 189.
DLR 745; A.I.R. 1936 (Peshawar) 192 ; AIR. 1937 (Bombay) 401; 17 DLR 643; A.I.R.
1976 (Rajasthan) 65; 16 DLR (SC) 386—Cited.
litigant, whether a Government agency or a private citizen, stands on an equal
footing in the eye of law. For condonation of delay, the defaulting party is
required to satisfactorily explain the delay of each day. Where the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not explain delay of each day and
statements in support of condonation of delay are too vague and general in
nature, having no reference to day to day basis, such an application must be
held to be insufficient for condoning delay. When laches and gross negligence
on the part of the Government are found, delay cannot be condoned.
Vs. Mosammat Soleman Bewa, 16 BLD (HCD) 267.
:21 DLR824; 6 BLD(AD)180—Cited.
criminal appeal was filed 1649 days after the prescribed period of limitation.
The petitioner contended that the trial was held in absentia and he was not at
all aware of the proceeding and he had no occasion to see the notification in
the newspapers. No warrant of proclamation and attachment was served or
executed at the village address of the petitioner. Considering ,these facts the
Court held that there were sufficient grounds preventing the appellant
petitioner from filing the appeal in time and he had no wilful negligence or
laches. Under such circumstances even this unusual delay was condoned.
Vs. The State, 16 BLD (HCD) 589
law of limitation does not provide any specific period of limitation for filing
a civil revision, still then the longstanding practice of our Supreme Court is
that a revisional application has to be filed within a period of 90 days. If
the petitioner can satisfy the Court as to the cause of delay by furnishing
cogent explanation, the Court has the power to condone reasonable delay in
Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev), Thakurgaon Vs Md. Khairullah and another,17
BLD (HCD) 372.
17BLD (AD) 57; 34DLR342; AIR 1987 (SC) 1353; 1988A1R897; 6BLD(AD) 180;
14BLD198; 1994 BLT (SC) 90; 12BLD (HCD) 368—Cited.
5 of the limitation Act requires liberal interpretation condoning reasonable
delay. The Court has sufficient power to con- ‘done any delay providing
justification for the same.
Hoque Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Public Works and urban Development of
Bangladesh, 17 BLD (HCD) 463.
stands on equal footing with ordinary litigants—Inordinate delay caused by
gross negligence on the part of Government Law officers—Not condoned.
petition for leave to appeal filed after 1340 days with a prayer for
condonation of delay by the Government of Bangladesh Government stands on the
same footing with ordinary litigants. It cannot deserve unlimited latitude in
matters of condonation of delay. Though in many cases of the Government, delay
is condoned upon sympathetic considerations as the file of the Government moves
through different stages and time-consuming procedures. But an inordinate delay
of 1340 days arising out of the gross negligence of Government officials cannot
be condoned. Appropriate action should be taken against the delinquent officers
for their laches and negligence, causing losses to the Government.
is really surprising to know that more than one year and nine months were
consumed to start a part-file and to file the leave petition. This is a gross
negligence on the part of the Solicitor Wing, which cannot be condoned.
of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Works and others Vs Mr.
Alauddin, 21 BLD (AD) 35.
cause—condonation of delay
expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to
advance substantial justice. Generally delay in preferring appeal or any proceeding
before superior court demands condonation in the interest of justice where no
gross negligence, inordinate delay without any valid ground and lack of
bonafide are manifested seeking condonation.
Commissioner and Chairman, District Fisheries Tender Committees, Moulvibazar
and others Vs Md. Aswab Ali and others, 21 BLD (HCD) 85.
delay of about 1½ year at first instance and subsequently delay of about 11
months, only an account of misfiling, is not sufficient cause for delay and as
such the prayer for condonation of delay has no merit in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
of Bangladesh Vs Md. Mafizuddin and another, 21 BLD (HCD) 107.
does not make any discrimination between the Government and private litigants
in the matter of condoning the delay. Negligence of an agent or servant of the.
Government is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay.
of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others Vs Md Jahangir Au and others,
21 BLD (HCD) 315.
Province of East Pakistan Vs. Abdul Hamid Darjee 21DLR824; Additional Deputy Commissioner
(Rev) and Assistant Custodian, Vested Property, Sirajgonj Vs. Md. Abdul Majid
and ors, 17 BLD(AD)57; 11 BLDI94; 45 DLR3O; 46 DLR663; 6 BLD(AD) (1986) 180;
reasons for delay are satisfactorily explained the Court is competent to accept
the reasons and condone the delay.
Sheikh and others Vs Deputy Commissioner (Rev.), Bagerhat, 14 BLD (HCD) 198.
25 DLR, 280.and 11 BLD(AD) 194 – Cited.
an appeal (like the instant appeal) is dismissed on ground of limitation,
conflicting decision is likely in the other appeal when decided on merit.
Suruzzamal Vs. Bangladesh and another, 13 BLD (AD) 125.
Bangladesh Vs. Jaferuddin, 6 BLD (AD) 180-Cited
admitting a time- barred appeal. the Court first of all is to be satisfied that
there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time- the appellant has
to make out a case of sufficient cause by filing an application for condonation
practice of admitting a time-barred appeal ‘ subject to objections at the
hearing is not surely a sound one and must be discouraged except, in marginal
cases. When the delay is long the court must make the exercise under section 5
of the Imitation Act before admitting the appeal with notice to the respondent.
and another Vs. Yakub Ali, 13 BLD (AD) 219.
40 DLR(H.C.D) 10, 41 Madras 412 (P.C.) 43 Bombay 376(AC.)-Cited.
of time for bonafide prosecuting a case in a Court without jurisdiction.
is no doubt that Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for exclusion of
time of a proceeding bonafide prosecuted by a party in a Court which has no
jurisdiction to entertain it. But in the instant case there being nothing on
record to show that the decree- holder bonafide prosecuted the case in any
wrong forum or that the operation of the decree in question was stayed by any
Court till the filing of the execution case after 3 years of the decree, the
learned Assistant Judge was manifestly wrong in giving the benefit of Section
14 of the Limitation Act to the decree holder.
Chowdhury and others Vs. Reba Rani Saba and others, 15 BLD (HCD) 644.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 does not make any provision for application
of section 14 of the Limitation Act in proceedings before the Administrative
Sukkur Vs Chairman, National Board of Revenue and others, 17 BLD (AD) 43.
limitation—When not available
the petitioner on his own volition added himself as a defendant in the suit 3
years after its institution, it does not lie in his mouth to say that the suit
is barred against him under Section 22(1) of the Limitation Act.
Gazi Miah Vs. Syed Abdur Rouf and others, 15 BLD (AD) 54.
of title by adverse possession
a co-sharer in sole possession of a property transfers it to a stranger and
such purchaser possess it in assertion of his hostile title to the exclusion of
other co-sharers and gets his name mutated and pays rent separately for more
than 12 years, the title of the co-sharers is extinguished by adverse
and others Vs Masuma Khatoon and other’s, 14 BLD(HCD)142
27 DLR(AD) 143; 39 DLR(AD)22- Cited.
a special or local law prescribes a period of limitation for filing, suit,
appeal or application different from the period prescribed by the First
Schedule of the said Act, the Proviso contained in Section 4, Sections 9-18 and
Section 22 will apply.
and others Vs. The Government of Bangladesh, 14 BLD (AD) 39.
A.I.R. 1964 (SC) 260; A.I.R. 1976 (SC) 105 ; A.I.R. 1953 Bombay 35; 1985 BLD
335; 31 DLR (AD)45; 37 DLR (AD) 184; 1986 BLD 235; 1986 BLD 258; PLD
1970(Lahore) 6; PLD 1956(FC) -72; PLD l966(Dhaka) 262; (1969) 1 All ER- 208;
(1979)1 All E.R. 365: (1982)3 All E.R. 1124; AIR 1966 Kerala 212 (S.B.)—Cited.
recurring refusals the limitation in a suit for specific performance of
contract cannot be extended. Limitation Act will run according to Article 113
of the Limitation Act from the date when the plaintiff noticed that the
performance of the contract is refused, and the suit is to be filed within 3
years from the date of the first refusal. The limitation will not be extended
for subsequent refusal or recurring refusals or on the basis of cause of action
as founded on the last date of refusal.
& ors Vs Birendra Nath Halder & ors., 21 BLD (HCD) 294.
the ‘No objection certificate’ for the construction of a cinema hail was issued
by the Deputy Commissioner under the Cinematograph Rules and it was within the
knowledge of the plaintiffs, they were required to file the suit within one
year of the said order. Filing of the present suit after about two years of the
passing of the impugned order is hit by Article 14 of the Limitation Act.
Tabibur Rahman and others Vs. Shaikh Nazrul Islam and others, 16 BLD (HCD) 12.
and 49—Columns 1 and 3
must be read together and as a whole in order to get their real meanings.
Wrongs contemplated in these Articles have the same meaning as they have in the
law of torts and as such the relationship between the plaintiffs and the
defendants in suits falling under these Articles must be that of strangers,
devoid of any contractual obligations, the
being the wronged and the latter being the wrong-doer. Article 120 of the
Limitation Act is applicable in the instant case.
Vs Janata Bank, 17 BLD (HCD) 184
provides that for setting aside a decree obtained by fraud or for other relief
on grounds of fraud, the period of limitation is 3 years from the time fraud
becomes known to the party wronged. When the plaint tiff in the plaint itself
stated that it filed Miscellaneous Case No. 23 of 1971 for setting aside the
exparte decree dated 9.1.1971 under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. and the same was
dismissed for default on 28.2.72 and thereafter it filed another Miscellaneous
Case being Case No. 72 of 1972 and the same was also dismissed on contest on
13.2.73, it is evident that the present 0. C. Suit No. 492 of 1981 challenging
the aforesaid exparte decree dated 9.1.1971 is hopelessly barred by limitation.
Jinnatunessa Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner,
Mymensingh, 15 BLD (HCD) 104.
104 and 116
suit for dower is more or less a Suit to enforce a simple money claim founded
solely on a contract entered into by the husband with the wife at the time of
the marriage in the absence of a prescribed period under the present law for
filing a suit for dower, Article 116 of the Limitation Act will apply in
preference to Articles 103 and 104 of the Limitation Act and the period of
limitation will be 6 years.
Chowdhury Vs. Shahana Rahim and another, 15 BLD(HCD)559
Mohamad Mazharal Ahad Vs. Mohamad Azimuddin Bhuiyan, 27 C.W.N. 2 10;Tricomdas
Vs. Gopinath LR 44 l.A. 65 and Nuruddin Ahmed Vs. Masuda Khanam. 9 DLR 8
provides that the period of limitation shall be 3 years if the date is fixed
for the performance of an act and if no such date is so fixed, then within 3
years from the time when the plaintiff notices that performance is refused.
When limitation is specially fixed in a written instrument, the date so fixed
shall determine the period of limitation.
Islam Vs. Sree Binoy Bhusan Chakraborty & ors, 15 BLD (HCD) 241.
Cecil Waldron Andrew Vs. Helen Andrew, 9DLR(PC)682; Sunil Krishna Banik and
others Vs. Kailash Chandra Saha and others, 36DLR(AD)220-Cited.
the transfer in question is found to be a complete Usufructuary mortgage under
section 95A of the S.A.T. Act, 1950, the limitation will be governed by Article
148 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of 60 years.
Rajiuddin Chowdhury Vs. Suruj Au, 16 BLD(HCD)96
32 DLR(AD) 233; 34 DLR(AD) 237; A.I.R. 1971 (SC) 2355—Cited.
period of 30 days’ limitation provided under Article 158 of the Limitation Act
is applicable to an application for setting aside an award and the limitation
starts from the date of notice of filing of the award in Court.
an award has been made and the award is filed in Court for making the same rule
of the Court, no suit can be filed for the purpose of avoiding the award and
the only remedy under the Arbitration Act to the parties is provided under
Section 33 of the Act.
Rahman Vs. Mvi. Nazmul Hossain Khan & ors., 13 BLD(HCD) 593.
Afaq Ahmed Ansari Vs. Zamir Hossain Ansari. PLD 1955 Sind 282; Amin & Co.
Vs. The Province of East Pakistan, 18 DLR 629—Cited.
for review of a judgment or order
period of limitation for review of a judgment or order is ninety days from the
date of the decree or the order under Article 173 of the Limitation Act. This
has been so provided with a view to securing finality of litigations, If this
bar of time is not placed on the power of review it would mean that a judgment
or order, the effect of which is to vitiate the previous judgment and order, is
entirely foreign to the jurisdiction in review.
of Bangladesh Vs. Sukur A14 16 BLD(HCD)545
PLD1978 (Lahore) 1016; PLD 1956 W.P.34 (Karachi) — Cited.
period of ninety days for filing in Court of an arbitration award will only
commence from the date of service of notice making the award. In the instant
case, as there was no date when such notice, if any, was at all issued or
served, the issue of limitation could only be properly raised and decided in
the hearing of the case.
Leather Company Ltd. v. Sikder Construction Ltd. and another, 22 BLD (HCD)125
limitation for execution of decree or order of any Civil Court
it is found that an application for the execution of the decree for the first
time has been filed after a lapse of 3 years from the date of decree, the
execution of the decree becomes clearly barred under Article 182 of the
Limitation Act, which prescribes a maximum period of 3 years for filing the
execution case. In such a case, the decree is not executable.
Chowdhury and others Vs. Reba Rani Saha and others, 15 BLD (HCD) 644.
Md. Abdur Rahim and others Vs. Sree Sree Geredhari Jeo, 27 DLR 72; Bangladesh
Jatiya Samabaya Bank Ltd. Vs. Sang- bad Daily Paper and others, 36 DLR (AD)5—
for execution of decree or order of a Court
(20(3) and (6) of Article 182 of the Limitation Act if read together make it
clear that the time for execution of a decree or order runs from the date of
the final decree or order of the appellate Court or from the date of the
decision passed on revision or review.
Md. Hares Mm
Vs. Khorsheda Khatun and others, 1 6BLD (HD) 6O4.
: 33DLR(AD) 101-Cited
limitation for filing an appeal before the District Judge is 30 days from the
date of the Decree.
and another Vs. Yakub All, 13 BLD (AD) 219.