SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(AP) 951

D.H.NASIR
N. V. Chowdhary – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


D. H. NASIR, J.

( 1 ) A very short question arises for our consideration in this Civil Revision Petition whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be pressed into service in spite of categorical exclusion of Order XXI, C. P. C. from the applicability of the said provisions of the Act.

( 2 ) SECTION 5 of the Limitation Act reads as under :-"5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases:- Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. "

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the Decree-Holder/petitioner, the real question before the Court was whether a review petition could be entertained in respect of any order passed by the Court in any proceeding under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code. According to the learned Government Pleader for the State the exclusion of Order XXI of C. P. C. from the scope of Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not come in the way of the














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top