Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Shakuntala Devi, W/o Late Mundrika Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Sambhu Sao, S/o Late Kalat Sahu – Respondent
1. This appeal is under Order XLIII Rule 1(t) of the CPC, against the order of dismissal dated 19.02.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 01/2010, filed for restoration under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 of C.P.C of Title Appeal No. 02/1997. Restoration application was filed after seven years of its dismissal, and consequently was held to be barred by limitation.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal is that plaintiff’s suit for partition was decreed on 30.11.1996 against which the defendant preferred Title Appeal No. 02/1997. The appeal was dismissed for default vide order dated 15.01.2003 and the restoration application was filed on 27.01.2010 after a delay of about seven years.
3. Learned Court below dismissed the restoration application for being barred by limitation which has been impugned in the instant appeal.
4. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the suit property was in an extremist infested area and the appellants were under tremendous pressure of the extremists and, therefore, the restoration application could not be filed within time.
5. Before entering into the merit of the present appeal, matter that needs consideration is about maintainabil
An appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(t) is not maintainable for a restoration application dismissed due to limitation as it does not involve a decision on the merits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot be deprived of justice on technical grounds, and the court can exercise discretion to condone delay in the absence of a formal ....
The court established that a formal application for condonation of delay is not mandatory under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing for discretion in restoring applications.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of provision for restoration of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC can be overcome by treating the application as one un....
The court upheld the trial court's restoration of a suit despite procedural missteps, emphasizing that implicit condonation of delay suffices for legal validity.
The court held that a revision under Article 227 is not maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available following the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay under the Lim....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
