Dismissed

Qazi Shahbuddin S/O Ikramuddin,Nagpur. v. S.R.Ahmad,Advocate, and 2 Others.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2013CAO/172/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application seeking condonation of delay for restoring a second appeal, the High Court at Nagpur rejected the plea for lack of sufficient cause. The court held the applicant was negligent as he had prior notice of the conditional order and failed to act within a reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay and the Misc. Civil Application are rejected.

Qazi Shahbuddin S/O Ikramuddin,Nagpur. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

0602cao172.12.odt

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION O. NO.172/2012 IN

¶5

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.293/2012 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.206 /1989 (D)

¶6

Kazi Shahbuddin s/o Sk. Ikramuddin ...Versus...

¶7

S.R. Ahmed (Deceased) Mohd. Aziz s/o Umarkachhi and another

¶8

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri D.C. Daga, Counsel for applicant Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Counsel for R - 2

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 06.02.2013

¶12

By this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 2196 days in filing the application for restoration of the second appeal.

¶13

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the application as also the reply, it appears that the applicant has not shown sufficient cause for seeking condonation of inordinate delay of 2196 days in filing the application for restoration of the second appeal. It appears on a perusal of the conditional order, dated 1.7.2005 that the learned Counsel for the applicant was present in the Court on that day and was aware of

¶14

0602cao172.12.odt

¶15

¶16

the conditional order being passed. It is also apparent from paragraph no.2 of the application for condonation of delay that the applicant was aware of the conditional order. In spite of having the knowledge of the conditional order, dated 1.7.2005, the applicant neither removed the office objection nor filed an application for setting aside the order within a reasonable time. It appears from the perusal of the order-sheet that the applicant was totally negligent in prosecuting the second appeal filed by the applicant against a decree of eviction passed against him.

¶17

No ground whatsoever has been made out for condoning the huge delay. The civil application, therefore, stands rejected.

¶18

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.293/2012

¶19

With the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the Misc. Civil Application is also rejected.

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

ssw

Qazi Shahbuddin S/O Ikramuddin,Nagpur. v. S.R.Ahmad,Advocate, and 2 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Qazi Shahbuddin S/O Ikramuddin,Nagpur. v. S.R.Ahmad,Advocate, and 2 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Malti W/O Rajesh Kapse Vs Harshpal S/O Ramchandra Rangari and Another

Motiram Patilbuwa Wagh and Ors. Vs Shriram Shankarlal Agrawal and Ors.

Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Thr. Its Secty. Pb Deo Vs Kum. Papita Madhukar Wankar and 2 Ors.

Qazi Shahbuddin S/O Ikramuddin,Nagpur. Vs S.R.Ahmad,Advocate, and 2 Others.

Regional Dairy Dev. Officer,Amt. Vs Ramesh Ramrao Bobade and and 14 Ors.

Regional Dairy Dev. Officer,Amt. Vs Ramesh Ramrao Bobade and and 14 Ors.