The High Court condoned the delay in filing a special appeal under Order XLIX Rule 5 CPC. However, it declined to interfere with an interim order already passed by the Single Judge who had fixed a date for final disposal.
Delay condoned; special appeal dismissed; interim order of the Single Judge not interfered with.
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. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 22 of 2018
Appellant :- Rais Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nand Lal Pandey,Suyash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 18275 of 2018
Delay in filing the special appeal has been sufficiently explained. Delay condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed.
Since the learned Single Judge has fixed a date in Writ - C No. 50832 of 2017 for final disposal, we are not inclined to interfere in the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge at this stage.
Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.1.2018 Mini
(Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the special appeal was sufficiently explained for condonation.
Whether the special appeal should be allowed to interfere with an interim order during the pendency of a final disposal date.
Rais Ahmad
State Of U.P.
Tarun Agarwala
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
