In this appeal from a defective order regarding an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the single judge dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation due to want of prosecution in the application below.
The appeal was dismissed for being barred by limitation.
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. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 197 of 1998 Appellant :- Anil Kumar And Others Respondent :- Balvinder Kaur And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mahesh Chandra Joshi,Amit Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- B.C. Naik
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
( Order on Application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act)
Order Date :- 13.8.2019/Mukesh
Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 197 of 1998 Appellant :- Anil Kumar And Others Respondent :- Balvinder Kaur And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mahesh Chandra Joshi,Amit Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- B.C. Naik
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
The application seeking condonation of delay for filing appeal having been rejected vide order of date, this appeal being barred by limitation, is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2019/Mukesh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed after rejection of the application for condonation of delay can be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar And Others
Balvinder Kaur And Others
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
