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

1993 Supreme(Del) 54

ARUN MADAN
KRISHAN LAL – Appellant
Versus
HANUMAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MANISH MALHOTRA, SUNIL AGGARWAL, Y.R.GROVER

Mr. Arun Madan, J.

( 1 ) BY the present application filed under Section 5 read with Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, the petitioner is seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20th March, 1991 passed by the Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi against the petitioner herein. The petitioner was advised to file the appeal against the said judgment and decree and the said appeal was filed within the period of limitation. When the appeal came up for hearing on 5th February, 1993 before the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, an objection was raised about the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appeal arose from the judgment and decree in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The petitioner made a statement before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi for withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to file a revision petition in the. appropriate Court. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with permission to the petition













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