MANORMA SINGH Vs. RAMJHARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Court Heard learned counsel for the appellant, ignoring the defects, in view of the urgency shown by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the reasons mentioned in the application being I.A. No. 330 of 2013, the appellant could not prefer Letters Patent Appeal and as such the delay may be condoned.

(3.) HEARD on the merits of the case.