Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RITU TAGORE
Santosh – Appellant
Versus
Sonia – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
Judgment
Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) in which learned ADJ, Gurugram dismissed the petitioners’ application for non-filing of certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2023 along with the memorandum of appeal, by the invoking the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 CPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a photocopy of the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.08.2023, downloaded from the website of the District Court, Gurugram, was appended alongwith the memorandum of the appeal. The certified copy of the decree sheet was also filed. An application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of judgment was also submitted as same was not available despite having been applied for.
3. The learned counsel submits that dismissal of the first appeal is harsh upon the petitioners, adversely impacting their statutory right to appeal on technical grounds. It is contended that the Court should not have dismissed the appeal based solely on technicalities. The learned counsel states that he is
The court emphasized the discretionary power of the court to condone procedural defects in appeals and highlighted that the interest of justice should not be constrained by hyper-technical interpreta....
Procedural defects in filing appeals should not prevent justice if rectified timely; the High Court's interference under Article 227 is limited to gross failures of justice.
Appeal – Limitation – Though National Company Law Appellate Tribunal is clothed with powers to exempt and to extend time under Rules 14 and 15 of NCLAT Rules respectively, such powers cannot be exerc....
The court has the authority to direct the learned Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of pending applications within specified timelines.
The limitation for filing an appeal begins upon the pronouncement of the order and not its publication, making delays uncondonable if not filed timely.
The court established that free certified copies and those obtained for a fee are treated equally for appeal purposes under the IBC and relevant rules.
A single second appeal is maintainable against multiple decrees from a single suit, clarifying procedural requirements under the CPC and High Court Rules.
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
Listen Article