This writ petition challenged an order dismissing condonation of a 177-day delay in filing an appeal. The High Court held the petitioner's second thought to file an appeal after family deliberation did not constitute sufficient cause, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8794 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mohd. Hashrat Respondent :- Sangam Shakahari Bhojnalaya, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Munni Devi Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhartendu Pathak
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The present petition arises out of the order dated 8.8.2018 whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Paper No.5Ga2, in support of memo of appeal filed by the petitioner, has been rejected. The Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.1199/74/17 has been filed with the delay of 177 days. The court below has recorded that the petitioner/appellant has not given sufficient explanation of the delay caused in filing the said appeal.
A perusal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed in support of the appeal shows that the petitioner was aware of the judgment and order dated 30.5.2017 at least on 4.7.2017. After getting a certified copy of the order on 11.7.2017, he had consulted a counsel who had advised him not to file an appeal as the order impugned was an order to maintain status quo.
It appears that the petitioner after due deliberation, chose not to file appeal within the time prescribed for the same.
The decision to file appeal taken by the petitioner, after applying a second certified copy of the judgment in the month of September 2017 was nothing but a second thought, which cannot be said to be sufficient explanation for delay in filing appeal.
For the aforesaid, no infirmity is found in the order impugned. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.12.2018 Jyotsana
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the explanation offered by the petitioner for 177 days delay in filing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.1199/74/17 constitutes sufficient cause to grant condonation under Section 5 of the Limitat
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Hashrat
Sangam Shakahari Bhojnalaya, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Munni Devi
Sunita Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
