BABU RAM versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASGANG, ETAH AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Babu Ram v. Additional District Judge, Kasgang, Etah And Others - WRIT - C No. 13084 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5055 (3 March 2006)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13084 of 2006

Babu Ram Vs. Addl. District Judge, Kasgang, Etah and others

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petition challenges the order of the appellate court dated 16.1.2006 whereby the order  of trial court rejecting the application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in moving the application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C.  was rejected.

Learned counsel contends that in the application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the exparte decree, the respondents had taken the grounds falsely, which were rightly rejected by the trial court and the appellate court has not considered those aspects of the matter and has wrongly allowed the appeal.

From the facts and circumstances, as appearing in this case are that the application for setting aside the exparte decree was delayed by about 26 days. Certain grounds were taken by the respondents in their application, which were, though, not found to be acceptable by the trial court  but the appellate court has accepted the same. The grounds, which had been taken, were that of illness of pairokar of the case and also the busy schedule of other plaintiffs, who are  railway employees. If the appellate court has accepted these grounds to be correct, I am not prepared to interfere and go into the details of the case. Therefore, only the delay condonation application has been allowed on payment of quite fabulous cost. In the aforesaid view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere and review the impugned order of the appellate court  and the petition is hereby dismissed.

03.03.2006

gp/

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.