Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vipin Sanghi, Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ.
Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Dehradun & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Preeti Sharma & Ors. - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 433 of 2022
Decided On : 21-12-2022
Delay Condonation - Special Appeal - The court allowed the condonation of a five-day delay in filing the appeal, considering that the impugned order had already been set aside in previous judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought condonation of a five-day delay in filing the present appeal, which was allowed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal in terms of its previous judgment and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the court due to the fact that the impugned order had already been set aside in previous judgments.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and disposed of by the court.
JUDGMENT
Vipin Sanghi, CJ. -
Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 02 of 2022)
1. Issue notice.
2. Counsel for the respondents appears and accepts notice.
3. The appellants seek condonation of five days delay in filing the present appeal.
4. The order impugned in the present appeal has already been set aside by us in couple of Special Appeals, being SPA No. 376 of 2022, SPA No. 389 of 2022 and SPA No. 399 of 2022, vide our judgment dated 24.11.2022. Considering the fact that the delay is only five days, we are inclined to allow the same. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2022
5. Following our decision in Special Appeal No. 376 of 2022, dated 24.11.2022, and other connected appeals, the present Appeal is allowed in terms of the said judgment.
6. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on the previous setting aside of the impugned order.
When a common judgment is challenged in multiple appeals, judicial consistency demands that identical matters be resolved in alignment with the findings of a co-ordinate bench that has already adjudi....
Consistency in judicial pronouncements requires that matters pertaining to the same underlying decision, which have been previously adjudicated by a co-ordinate bench, must follow the same outcome to....
The court determined that the appellant sufficiently explained the 204-day delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing that each case's facts dictate the condonation of delay.
The court emphasized the importance of showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay and highlighted the need for a liberal but rational approach in such matters.
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
