SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAVI RANJAN
Harish Chandra Yadav, S/o-Jitan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality.
The instant intra-court appeal has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ with defects.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that defect as has been pointed out by the office being minor in nature, therefore, the same may be ignored and the matter may be heard finally on merit.
This Court after perusing the office note as also the report of the Stamp Reporter and taking into consideration the nature of defect, deem it fit and proper to ignore the same, accordingly, the defect as has been pointed out by the office, is ignored.
The instant appeal is barred by limitation and as such, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pressed the delay condonation application being I.A.No.3862 of 2019. I.A.No.3862 of 2019
This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 102 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
Heard.
In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory app
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.