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

1990 Supreme(Ker) 394

PADMANABHAN
Samuel Joseph – Appellant
Versus
Ramachandran Chellayyan – Respondent


Judgment :-

Preliminary decree for partition passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No. 66 of 1972 on 30-10-1976 could have been appealed before the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. But, by a bona fide mistake, A.S.No.171 of 1977 was filed before this court on the last day of limitation. Period of limitation for appeal to the High Court is 90 days, but to the District Court, it is only 30 days. Instead of filing the appeal before the High Court, if it was filed before the District Court, it would have been beyond time. This court admitted the appeal, but, later on finding that it had to be filed before the District Court, returned the same for presentation before that court. The order was on 2-4-1980 and the memorandum of appeal was returned on 5-4-1980. A fresh memorandum of appeal was presented before the District Judge only on 18-4-1980 with an application to condone the delay and exclusion of the period under Ss.5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The District Judge dismissed the application under Ss.5 and 14 and the appeal was also consequently dismissed. Hence this second appeal by the appellant, who is the 40th defendant.

2. The District Judge was of the vi











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