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

2016 Supreme(All) 509

MANOJ MISRA
AZAD CHAUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
JAI KUMAR – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Arvind Srivastava for the Revisionist; Arvind Srivastava and Pushkar Srivastava for the Opposite Parties.

JUDGMENT

IN RE : Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 140955 of 2016.

Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard counsel for both sides.

2. By this delay condonation application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of 49 days delay in filing the revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 5th February, 2016, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4/Judge, Small Causes, Jhansi in SCC Suit No. 24 of 2013.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that there are conflicting views as to whether period of limitation for filing revision under Section 25 of the Act would be 90 days or 30 days and this question has been referred to a larger Bench keeping in mind the observation made by the Apex Court in Uday Bhan Gupta’s case in which it was observed that limitation period for filing a revision in the High Court would be 90 days. It has been submitted that under the bona fide belief that the limitation for filing of revision would be 90 days, there has been some delay which is liable to be condoned.

4. Learned counsel for the caveator-opposite party, does not have any objection in cond
































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