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

2004 Supreme(Pat) 613

V.N.SINHA
Md. Moazzam Ali – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sushila – Respondent


Judgment

V.N.Sinha, J.

1. Heard Sri Kaushal Kumar for the petitioners and Shri Suresh Chandra Prasad Sinha for the opposite party on the interlocutory application bearing No. 4500 of 2003 wherein prayer has been made to condone 34 days delay in filing this civil revision application.

2. It appears from perusal of the interlocutory application that the aforesaid delay in filing the civil revision application was caused on account of erroneous advice tendered by the counsel for the petitioners that period of 90 days is available for filing the revision under Sub-section 8 of Section 14 of the B.B.C. Act, 1982 from the date of judgment and decree passed under the said Act. As the delay in filing the civil revision application was caused due to the erroneous advice of the learned counsel and period of limitation for filing the revision under the Act is sixty days, I deem it expedient to condone the delay in filing this civil revision application. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay of 34 days in filing the civil revision application is condoned. Having condoned the delay, I heard the counsel for the parties on the merits of the civil revision application













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