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

2010 Supreme(P&H) 3029

L.N.MITTAL
Chief Administrator, Huda – Appellant
Versus
Satpal – Respondent


Judgment

L.N.Mittal, J.

1. Defendants No. 2 to 4 i.e. Chief Administrator, Administrator and Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff Satpal against State of Haryana defendant No. 1 and against the petitioners as defendants No. 2 to 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006, Annexure P/1, decreed the suit. Defendants No. 2 to 4 filed first appeal on 26.5.2009 against judgment and decree of the trial court. Along with first appeal, defendants No. 2 to 4 made application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay of 873 days in filing the said appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2009, Annexure P/2, dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal and consequently dismissed the first appeal as well. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No. 2 to 4 filed RSA No. 2186 of 2010 in this Court. However, vide order dated 30.6.2010, Annexure P





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