Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAGAR PARISHAD,BHILWARA versus TULSIRAM & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NAGAR PARISHAD,BHILWARA v TULSIRAM & ORS - CMA Case No. 05445 of 2004 [2007] RD-RJ 4019 (17 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

--------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 05445 of 2004

NAGAR PARISHAD,BHILWARA

V/S

TULSIRAM & ORS

Mr. MANOJ BOHRA for Mr. KAILASH JOSHI, for the appellant / petitioner

Mr. MANISH PITALIYA for Mr. S.SARUPURIA, for the respondent

Date of Order : 17.8.2007

HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.

ORDER

-----

The Registry has reported the appeal to be barred by 16 days. The impugned award is dt. 8.7.2004. Certified copy was applied on 13.7.2004, and was received on 17.7.2004.

It is alleged in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, that the judgment was passed on 8.7.2004, and the appellant was under impression that minimum 2-3 days will be spent in preparation of certified copy, as such he could not file application for obtaining certified copy of judgment in time, and since there is no seal on the back of the judgment showing when it was applied, and prepared, as such the delay was caused in filing the appeal.

Suffice it to say that there is a seal on the back of the certified copy showing the date when it was applied.

Obviously certified copy was applied after 2-3 days, and was ready within 3-4 days, and was received also on 17.7.2004. It is also significant to note that the amount under the award has been deposited by the appellant before the Commissioner on 13.8.2004, and thus it was clear that the appellant was to file appeal but then the appeal has been filed on 28.9.2004 only for which no sufficient explanation is given.

Thus, in my view, it cannot be said that the appellant was prevented from any sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time. The application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.

( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/


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.