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

2008 Supreme(MP) 562

N.K.MODY
Vinita – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep – Respondent


Advocates:
P.C. Vaya for appellant; Sunil Jain for respondent.

ORDER

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2003 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 42-A/0 I, whereby divorce petition filed by the respondent on the ground of cruelty was allowed and a decree of divorce was passed, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Since the appeal is barred by 281 days, therefore, an application for condonation of delay is filed. The reason for condoning the delay assigned in the application is that after passing of the decree on 11.12.2003 appellant approached her Counsel Mr. Suresh Raj Purohit, who was contesting the case on her behalf before the learned Court below. It was

alleged that all the necessary documents were given by her to the learned counsel who assured that the appeal shall be filed before this Court. It is submitted that thereafter, appellant came to know on 28.10.2004 in the proceedings of maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, that no appeal has been filed by the learned counsel. It is further alleged that thereafter again after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree the appeal was filed by the appellant on 16.12.2004. It is submitted that delay in filing















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