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

1989 Supreme(MP) 229

K.L.SHRIVASTAVA
MANORAMA – Appellant
Versus
CHITTAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Brajesh Pandya, N.K.SANGHI, S.D.Snaghi

K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under O. 22, R. 9 of the Civil P. C. , 1908 (for short 'the Code') for setting aside abatement of appeal. An application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement of appeal has also been filed.

( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the applications are these. Second Appeal No. 389 of 1974 preferred by Chandrashekhar the father of the petitioner Smt. Manorama wife of Jagdish Chandera was dismissed on 17-7-1985 as having abated, the said Chandrashekar having died on 15-1-1985.

( 3 ) THE application for setting aside the abatement was filed on 29-8-1986 and therein it has been stated that Chandrashekar was resident of a village in district Dhar and the applicant resides in Indore and had no earlier knowledge of any case by her father.

( 4 ) IN the application under S. 5 of the Act it has been stated that the petitioner came to know about the abatement on 29-8-1986 and in the circumstances the delay in applying for slitting aside the abatement deserves to be condoned. ( 5 ) THIS Court required the Civil Judge Class I, Dhar to submit his findin
















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