Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM DASS versus IIIRD A.D.J., MAINPURI AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Dass v. Iiird A.D.J., Mainpuri And Another - WRIT - C No. 38299 of 1997 [2007] RD-AH 10960 (2 July 2007)

 

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.28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38299 of 1997

Ram Dass Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mainpuri & Anr.

~~~~~~~

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14th August, 1997 by which the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mainpuri rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19th August, 1991 passed by the learned Ist Additional Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri in Original Suit No.194 of 1985.

The Original Suit that had been filed for decree of specific performance was decreed partly on 19th August, 1991. The defendant filed the appeal on 11th January, 1993 along with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. This application was rejected holding that the reason indicated in the application for condoning the delay that the applicant had remained ill from 1st January, 1992 to 31st December, 1992 could not be accepted as there was no convincing evidence on the record to indicate that the applicant had remained ill during the aforesaid period. The Court also noticed that on enquiries made from the applicant, it was clear that he had not remained ill during this period.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

There is nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioner had filed any document before the Court below to show that he had actually remained ill for a period of one year. In such circumstances the finding recorded by the Court below cannot be said to be perverse. This apart, the reason indicated in the application for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time is also not correct as the applicant, who was present in the Court below, also informed the Court below that he had actually not fallen ill during this period. In such circumstances, there is no error in the order of the Court below rejecting the application.

The petition is therefore, without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 2.7.2007

GS


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.