Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS versus POORAN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. & Others v. Pooran - FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 119 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 4523 (20 October 2005)

 

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.30

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.236585 of 2004

In

First Appeal No.119 of 1997

State of U.P. and another Vs. Pooran

******

Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

This Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.236585 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has been moved for condoning delay of 376 days in preferring appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3.11.1995 passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahar in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 47 of 1986, 41 of 1986, 42 of 1986, 43 of 1986, 44 of 1986, 45 of 1986, 46 of 1986, 49 of 1986 51 of 1986 and 52 of 1986.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application.

From perusal of the averments made in the affidavit annexed to this application, it is clear that the cause for delay in filing the appeal has not been explained therein satisfactorily. In para-9 it has been averred that sanction was granted on 17.5.1996 by the State Government for filing the appeal and thereafter the amount for court fee was made available on 5.12.1996 and the appeal was filed thereafter on 28.2.1997. No cause much less sufficient cause has been shown regarding the delay with effect from 17.5.1996 till the date of filing of this Delay Condonation Application No. 236585 of 2004. More so, it is admitted by the standing counsel that nothing prevented the appellant to file the appeal with nominal court fees along with an application seeking permission to deposit deficit court fee within the stipulated period granted by the Court instead of the appellant to have waited for filing the appeal on the ground of arranging the funds for purchasing the court fees. In such circumstances in absence of sufficient cause and cogent reasons disclosed in the delay condonation application for not preferring the appeal within stipulated statutory period of limitation, this application is liable to be rejected.  

The delay condonation application no. 236585 of 2004 is rejected accordingly.  

October 20, 2005

Hasnain


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.