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

H.S.BRAR, C.P.BUDHIRAJA
RAJ KAUR – Appellant
Versus
HARWINDER SINGH – Respondent


Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjay Nagpal and Mr. Harmandeep Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: None.

ORDER

Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It is an application for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the appeal.

The cause for delay given in the application is that though the impugned order dated 10.12.2002 was received on 20.12.2002 by some family member of the appellant but the family member forgot to intimate about the receipt of the copy of the impugned order and kept the same somewhere in the house. It is then stated in the application that yesterday when the appellant was dusting the house and keeping the household articles in order, found the impugned order and came to know about the same.

2. We do not find as reasonable the ground furnished by the applicant for condoning the delay of 97 days in filing the appeal. First of all, only a vague averment has been made. It is not stated as to who was the family member who received the copy and whom he/she forgot and what efforts were made by that family member to find out the copy of the impugned order. It is also unbelievable that the family member of the applicant did not tell about the receipt of the impugned order to the applicant for such a long time. The ground seems to be a madeup one.

We do not find any ground to cond


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