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