Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJAN ROY, RAJEEV BHARTI
Vinay Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Nidhi Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consideration of delay in filing appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. delay in filing appeal is condoned. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. maintainability of appeal is considered. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. appeal exclusions under chapter viii rule 5. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court decision clarification on appeal maintainability. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. rejected precedents and distinctions in jurisdictions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. final ruling on appeal non-maintainability. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Order on Delay Condonation Application
1. Heard.
2. Although we have serious doubts as regards the maintainability of this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rules 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, nevertheless, as the appeal is delayed, first and foremost we have to consider the delay whether it is liable to be condoned.
3. Having gone through the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay, we find that the cause shown is sufficient.
4. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Order on Appeal
5. We now proceed to consider the maintainability of the appeal under Chapter VIII Rules 5 of the Rules, 1952.
6. The appeal is directed against the judgement and order
Special appeals cannot be filed against judgments made under Article 227 of the Constitution when challenging court orders, following the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rul....
The main legal principle established is that delay in filing appeals should be condoned when sufficient cause is shown, especially to advance substantial justice. The discretion to condone delay shou....
No appeal lies against an order condoning delay under Section 251 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code; the only remedy is a revision before the State Government under Section 259.
(1)Award ofMaintenance Pendente Lite – No appeal against an order passed as an interlocutory order can be filed under Section 19 of Family Court’s Act and petition under Article 227 of Constitution o....
The court emphasized the need for substantial justice, the wide discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the balance of convenience between the parties.
An interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is interlocutory and not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act; thus, Article 227 is the appropriate remedy.
Interlocutory orders are not subject to appeal if they do not conclusively determine rights or issues relevant to the main case.
Government litigation must adhere to the same standards for condonation of delay as private parties, with negligence and casual inaction being inadequate justifications.
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
