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

HABIBOR RAHMAN AND 10 ORS – Appellant
Versus
MUSSTT. UMMEY NESSA @ MUSSTT UMMEY KULSUM – Respondent


ORDER

Date : 03-09-2018 Heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears on call for the opposite parties although as per order dated 01.08.2018, passed in the proceedings of the Lawazima Court, notice is duly served on the opposite party.

Hence, the matter is heard ex-parte against the opposite parties.

By this application under section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 229 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected revision.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite parties are the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 13/2013 (old)/Title Suit No. 38/2016 (new), filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which was decreed as per the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2017. It is submitted that due to erroneous advice by the counsel, the applicants had filed Title appeal No. 18/2017 before the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri and the said learned Court had dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 15.12.2017. It is submitted that the first appellate judgment was without any jurisdiction as the order was revisable under Section 115 CPC. Therefore, i

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