REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SHIV RAM Appellant

V/S

MAHESH KUMAR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHAKUNTALA DEVI JAM VS. KUNTAL KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ADMINISTRATOR HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION ANANTNAG VS. KATIJI [REFERRED TO]
G RAMEGOWDA MAJOR BASAVALINGAPPA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE:SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHANDRA MANI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. HARISH CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RATAN LAL SAHU [REFERRED TO]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
VEDABAI ALIAS VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF NAGALAND VS. LIPOK A O [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. AHMED JAAN [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
ESHA BHATTACHARJEE VS. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY [REFERRED TO]
DHIRAJ SINGH VS. HARYANA STATE [REFERRED TO]
S. GANESHARAJU (D) THR. L.RS. AND ANR. VS. NARASAMMA (D) THR. L.RS. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
B.S. SHESHAGIRI SETTY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no necessity to set out the facts of the case in view of the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal having been dismissed by the learned First appellate court without entering into the merits of the case, resulting in dismissal of the appeal itself.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was barred by 55 days. The explanation offered qua the same was that the appellant had been informed that the limitation for filing of the appeal was 90 days and moreover, the appellant on account of his mother being seriously ill, was in a confused state of mind and could not, therefore, file the appeal within limitation.

(3.) The learned lower appellate court dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant had failed to name the Advocate who had advised him regarding period of limitation and, therefore, the veracity of the averments contained in the application were belied from the conduct of the appellant.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHIV RAM Vs. MAHESH KUMAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address