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

2024 Supreme(Pat) 987

SHAILENDRA SINGH
Bajrangi Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sheo Lal Sao – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Gaurav Govind, Adv.

ORDER :

Mr. Gaurav Govind, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the defect with regard to the limitation period pointed out by the office is completely wrong as in this appeal, the appellant has challenged both the judgment and decree and in the Limitation Act, there is no specific provision of limitation period with regard to an appeal against the judgment passed by a court while exercising its original jurisdiction, though, there is specific provision with regard to an appeal against the decree passed by such court and as per Article 116 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for filing an appeal against the decree is ninety days and the same starts from the date of the decree and the appellant has filed this appeal within ninety days from the date of the decree which is under challenge. In support of the above submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court passed in the case of Peerappa vs. Basamma and Others reported in AIR 1981 Karnataka 163 in which it was ruled that the limitation period under Article 116 of the Limitation Act for filing an appeal must be computed from the date of certified copy of the d

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