Back
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Hartesh Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Asha Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
CM APPL. 21984/2023 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 703/2023 & CM APPL. 21985/2023 (Stay)
3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 25.04.2023 in CS 645/2018 titled ‘Asha Gupta v. Naveen Kumar Gupta’, whereby the applications seeking early hearing, review and condonation of delay were dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter has been pending for almost thirteen years and has not been heard till date.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the review application as well as condonation of delay in filing application be taken up and decided on or before 26.05.2023.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide the order dated 22.08.2022, the learned Trial Court had fixed the matter for final arguments on 15.10.2022. However, Mr. De submits that, an application seeking transmission of the Will to FSL for scientific evaluation in question was pending since the last four years was suddenly taken up by the learned Trial Court. Vide the order dated 04.11.2022, the same was directed to be sent to FSL for
The court may decline to interfere in a case, considering the pendency of numerous cases and the need for expeditious disposal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach in dealing with applications for condonation of delay, while also emphasizing t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provision for review of a judgment is not meant to provide a re-hearing to the parties, and condonation of delay requires a valid and suff....
Each day's delay in filing a review petition must be adequately explained, and failure to do so may lead to dismissal.
![Sadh Ram [Deceased] through LRs. Shri Ram Dayal vs Darshan Singh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 873](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Himachal_Pradesh_1.png)
An appeal against an interlocutory order is not maintainable if it does not decide the main issue in controversy, as established by the classification of interim orders.
Government departments must provide reasonable explanations for delays in filing petitions; absence of sufficient cause results in dismissal of applications for condonation.
Government departments must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays in legal filings, emphasizing diligence in legal proceedings.
The court ruled that a party cannot justify an inordinate delay in filing a review petition based on subsequent overruling of a prior decision, as it violates the principles of limitation and suffici....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
