A. SANTHOSH REDDY
Satwant Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Vijetha Fortune Flat Owners Association – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This civil revision petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dtd. 20/2/2017 in I.A.No.1073 of 2016 in AS SR No.18367 of 2015 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as the respondent No.2. None appeared for respondent No.1. Perused the record.
3. The revision petitioners - defendants preferred an appeal aggrieved by the decree and judgment dtd. 9/9/2015 in O.S.No.1117 of 2012 passed by the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, along with an application in I.A.No.1073 of 2016 under Order 41 Rule 7(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to condone the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide order dtd. 20/2/2017 in I.A.No.1073 of 2016 in ASSR No.18367 of 2015 passed the following order: "...Perused the judgment dtd. 9/9/2015 in O.S.No.1117 of 2012. Considering the fact that there are several other 15 defendants available on record, but no one contacted the counsel in time to prefer the appeal and the reasons stated by the petitioners for the abnormal delay of
State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others (2005) 3 SCC 752: 2005 SCC (Cri) 906
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shanti Misra (1975) 2 SCC 840
N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123: AIR 1998 SC 3222
State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.