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

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3511

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J
PURUSHOTTAM MARAVI – Appellant
Versus
SMT. MEERA MARCO – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: None

Table of Content
1. established case law and judicial principles on limitations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
2. importance of bona fides and reasonableness for condonation. (Para 12)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL ON THE 19th OF MAY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5403 of 2024 PURUSHOTTAM MARAVI Versus SMT. MEERA MARCO Appearance:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The applicant has filed I.A. No.661 of 2025 – an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in presentation of the revision.

4. I have gone through the application for condonation of delay.

6. Perused the record.

Signature Not Verified

“7. In construing Section 5 (of the Limitation Act), it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitat

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