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

2004 Supreme(Del) 24

VIKRAMAJIT SEN
HARO SINGH – Appellant
Versus
AJAY KUMAR CHAWLA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.M.Sharma, D.D.SHARMA, Vivek Bharti Sharma,

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the Judgment dated 11. 1. 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in which the prayer for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was granted whilst the prayer for damages was rejected. This Revision has been filed on 17. 7. 2001, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The grounds urged for condoning the delay reads thus:

"2. That inadvertently the previous counsel of the petitioner approached the appellate court wrongly for the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner/applicant. 3. That though the appeal was filed in time but the same was filed in a wrong court. 4. That delay in filing the present Revision Petition is not attributed to the petitioner/applicant but due to filing of the wrong appeal filed by the previous counsel of the petitioner/applicant. 5. That the petitioner/applicant should not suffer for mistake of his counsel and the petitioner should be heard on merit. "

( 2 ) THE Appeal appears to have been filed on 16. 3. 2000 and was dismissed on 9. 5. 2001. Section 6 (3) of the Specific Relief Act is explicit in terms, and states that

"no appeal







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