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

1999 Supreme(Raj) 1431

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
T. Crauford – Appellant
Versus
Marry Disilva – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. - An application has been filed under Section 151 CPC. for recalling the order passed by this court on 13.8.1998. It is contended that in view of Order 41 Rule 3A CPC the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not have been condoned and ex-parte interim order could not have been passed.

2. On 13.8.1998 while condoning the delay under Section 5 the Limitation Act, I directed the parties to maintain status quo existed on that date.

3. Before proceeding further it would be apposite to take the stock of to Order 41 Rule 3-A, which provides thus :

"Rule 3A-Application for condonation of delay-(1) When an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.

(2) If the court sees no reason to reject the application without the issue of a notice to the respondent, notice thereof shall be issued to the respondent and the matter shall be finally decided by the Court before it proceeds to deal with the appeal under Rule 11 or R














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