PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Ajay Dabra – Appellant
Versus
Pyare Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Both these Appeals before this Court are by the plaintiff who had filed a suit for specific performance, which was dismissed and later his First Appeal before the High Court was dismissed on the grounds of delay. We may state here that the Plaintiff/Appellant was not a party to the contract of which a specific performance was sought. The contract was executed between the defendant and a company called M/s Himalayan Ski Village Pvt. Ltd. which was for sale of an ‘agricultural land’ in Himachal Pradesh. There were two plots of land for which two different “agreements of sale” were executed, and hence two civil suits were filed.
3. In both the above appeals, there is a common challenge against order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CMP (M) No.75 of 2018 & CMP (M) No.76 of 2018. The impugned order dismisses the delay condonation applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone a delay of 254 days, because the reasons assigned for the condonation were not sufficient reasons for condonation of the delay. The Appellant herein had earlier filed two suits (be
Mannan Lal v. Mst. Chhotaka Bibi & Ors.
S. Wajid Ali v. Mt. Isar Bano Urf Isar Fatima & Ors.
P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham & Anr.
Ganapathy Hegde v. Krishnakudva & Anr.
K.C. Skaria v. Govt. of State of Kerala & Anr.
Mahant Bikram Dass Chela versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh And Others
Basawaraj and Another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.