WANCHOO, BAPNA
Rajasthan State – Appellant
Versus
Nathmal – Respondent
2. The application has been opposed on behalf of the opposite party on two technical grounds, namely—
(1) that it is barred by limitation, and (2) that it has not been properly presented.
Learned counsel for the opposite party agrees that but for these two technical matters, the case is a fit one for granting leave under Arts. 132 (1) and 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution.
3. The case arose on an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Nathmal and Mithalal. That application was allowed on the 19th October, 1951. The present application was filed on the 30th of January, 1952. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that the application is barred by limitation for two reasons
(1) that the applicant is not entitled to any deduction of time taken in obtaining a copy of the judgment to be appealed from under sec. 12 of the Limitation Act, and
(2) that, in any case, Mithalal having been brought on the record on an application, dated 5th March, 1952, the application was burred against him.
4. Arts. 132 and 133 of the Constit
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.