Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ghanshyam Das Gupta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal under cpc dismissed on grounds of delay. (Para 1) |
| 2. supreme court precedent on appeals dismissed as time-barred. (Para 2 , 3 , 9) |
| 3. arguments on the scope of a section 100 appeal. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's observations on perverse findings in the adj's order. (Para 8 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. order remanding case back for consideration on merits. (Para 16 , 17) |
1. This appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) arises out of RCA 49/2018, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, ("the learned ADJ") vide the impugned judgment dated 9th April, 2019, on the ground of delay, by dismissing the application preferred by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. That a second appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, does lie against a first appellate order, which dismisses an application for condonation of delay and consequently rejects the first appeal as time barred, stands authoritatively decided by a Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Maniram v. Mst. Fuleshwar, 1996 MP LJ 764 (FB), which follows the decisions of the Supreme Court in Melaram v. Income Tax Commissioner, AIR 1956 S
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
