Dismissed
Qazi Shahbuddin S/O Ikramuddin,Nagpur. v. S.R.Ahmad,Advocate, and 2 Others.
Bombay HCRC/151/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
0602cao172.12.odt
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION O. NO.172/2012 IN
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.293/2012 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.206 /1989 (D)
Kazi Shahbuddin s/o Sk. Ikramuddin ...Versus...
S.R. Ahmed (Deceased) Mohd. Aziz s/o Umarkachhi and another
Shri D.C. Daga, Counsel for applicant Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Counsel for R - 2
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 06.02.2013
By this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 2196 days in filing the application for restoration of the second appeal.
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
0602cao172.12.odt
2
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.
No ground whatsoever has been made out for condoning the huge delay. The civil application, therefore, stands rejected.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.293/2012
With the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the Misc. Civil Application is also rejected.
JUDGE
ssw
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning a delay of 2196 days in filing an application for restoration of a second appeal.
Kazi Shahbuddin
S.R. Ahmed
Mohd. Aziz
Vasanti A. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court