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

2014 Supreme(MP) 1227

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
K.K. Trivedi, J.
Mahila Meeradevi - Appellant
Versus
Rekha - Respondent
M.C.C. No. 989-2014
Decided On : 14-08-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Rakesh Kumar Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Advocate.

The court has the discretion to condone delay and restore an appeal upon considering the reasons for non-compliance.

Headnote:

Condonation of Delay - Restoration of Appeal - The court allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the MCC and restored the appeal on its original number, provided the default pointed out by the Registry is removed within 15 days.

Fact of the Case:

The MCC was filed for restoration of F.A. No. 167 of 2013, which was dismissed due to non-compliance of a peremptory order by the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the MCC and restored the appeal on its original number, subject to the removal of the default within 15 days.

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the MCC, restoration of the appeal, non-compliance of the peremptory order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the averments made in the application and the contentions supported by an affidavit of the counsel in allowing the MCC and restoring the appeal.

Final Decision: The MCC was allowed, and F.A. No. 167 of 2013 was ordered to be restored on its original number, with a condition for removal of the default within 15 days.

JUDGMENT

       1.Heard on I.A. No. 8827 of 2014, an application for condonation of delay in filing the MCC.

2. Considering the averments made in the application, the same stands allowed. Delay in filing the application is condoned.

Also heard on the question of admission.

3. This MCC has been filed for restoration of F.A. No. 167 of 2013 which was automatically dismissed due to peremptory order passed by this Court on 03.04.2014. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he could not pay the process fee within the required time. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the order. If the appeal is not restored, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss. The applicant is very much interested in prosecuting the appeal. Such contentions are supported by an affidavit of the counsel.

4. Considering the aforesaid, the MCC is allowed. F.A. No. 167 of 2013 be restored on its original number, in case the default as pointed out by the Registry is removed within 15 days from today. Non-compliance of this order will entail automatic revival of the order of dismissal of first appeal.

The MCC stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top