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

1981 Supreme(Ker) 16

G.VISWANATHA.IYER, U.L.BHAT
MAYA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA BHATTATHIRI – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This application to condone the delay in filing the appeal has been posted before us as the correctness of the decision in Padmavathi v. Kalu (1980 KLT. 306) was doubted when the application came up for consideration before one of us sitting single. The appeal in this case was filed on 24-9-1980. On that date the time to file the appeal was over. But no petition to excuse the delay was filed along with the appeal. The Registrar returned the memorandum of appeal and granted 15 days' time to cure the defects. This was on 25-9-1980. On 8-10-1980 the appeal was re-presented with the petition to excuse the delay. When the respondent entered appearance on receipt of notice of the delay petition be took up a preliminary objection that there is no valid presentation of the appeal or the petition to excuse delay is that the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by the application to excuse the delay as provided for under Order XLI R.3A CPC. and as such the petition has only to be dismissed, in support of that contention he relied on the decision of Khalid, J in Padmavathi v. Kalu (1980 KLT. 306). R.3A is a rule of procedure to be followed in a case where an appeal is prese



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