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

2004 Supreme(MP) 401

S.S.JHA, A.K.GOHIL
Shaligram – Appellant
Versus
Nagar Palika – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.N.Gupta, V.K.Bharadwaj,

Judgment

( 1. ) THIS revision has been referred by Single Bench to the Larger Bench on

the following question of law:-

"whether a revision against an order rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequential dismissal of the appeal is revisable or not ?

( 2. ) AN appeal was preferred under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Vidisha. Appeal was barred by limitation, therefore, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. Appellate Court has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act holding therein that the appellant has failed to explain each days delay and no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed and after dismissal of the application appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

( 3. ) QUESTION requires to be determined in the case is whether the order passed by the Appellate Court is revisable ?

( 4. ) IN the case of Ratansingh v. Vijaysingh and Ors. , AIR 2001 SC 279, it is held that rejection of application for condonation of delay and consequent dismissal of appea













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