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

AVM J. RAJENDRA, SUBHASH CHANDRA
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kamuben Arvindbhai Patni – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Avinash, Advocate
For the Respondent: None

ORDER (ORAL)

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. Alongwith the Revision Petition, IA 9807 of 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 211 days.

3. It is stated in the application for condonation of delay that majority of the time was consumed by the Petitioner in procuring the trial records of the present case since it pertains to the year 2015. The Petitioner came to know the fact of suppression of material facts from Investigation Agencies hired by them. It took considerable time in procuring the English translation of the impugned order. It is prayed that the delay be condoned.

4. We have perused the records carefully.

5. The reasons advanced by the Petitioner to justify the delay caused have been considered. The Petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of the Revision Petition occurred since considerable time was consumed in procuring the trial records, translation of English documents and late knowledge of the suppression of material facts.

6. The law of limitation requires delay for each day of delay to be explained after expiry of the period of limitation. It is necessary that this explanation is rational, reasonable and rea

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