Sarju vs Baliram - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 31740

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 31740

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sachin Singh Rajput, J
Sarju – Appellant
Versus
Baliram – Respondent
SA No. 20 of 2024

Important Points

The court admitted the second appeal to determine if the first appellate court was justified in dismissing the first appeal due to the appellant's failure to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Subject

Civil - Procedural Law

Act Referred

Code of Civil Procedure: S.96

Headnote

(A) Condonation of Delay - First Appeal - Sufficient Cause - Whether the dismissal of a first appeal on the grounds of failure to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay constitutes a substantial question of law for a second appeal.

Issues: Whether the first appellate Court was justified in dismissing the first appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the CPC holding that the appellants could not establish the sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal resulting into dismissal of the application for condonation of delay as well as the First Appeal?

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gyan Prakash Shukla
For the Respondents: S.K. Soni

##PAGE1##

CGHC010414592023 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 20 of 2024 SARJU (Died Through LRs) versus BALIRAM Order Sheet

16/10/2026 Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Counsel for the appellant.

Heard on admission.

This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law;

“ As to whether the first appellate Court was justified in dismissing the first appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the CPC holding that the appellants could not establish the sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal resulting into dismissal of the application for condonation of delay as well as the First Appeal?

##PAGE2##

Issue notice to the respondents.

Mr. S.K. Soni, G.A. accepts notice on behalf of State- Respondent No. 19.

Let notice be issued to other respondents on payment of PF as per rules.

Name of Advocate General be published in the cause list.

Interim Relief, if any, to continue till the next date of hearing.

List this case after service of notice.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

JUDGE

Saurabh