The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appellant's appeal against a maintenance order and rejected his application for condonation of delay due to a lapse of over one year without satisfactory grounds.
The application for condonation of delay was dismissed; consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
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.
Slill'^i^-
4 :^—
, IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURrC.G.^
•?1 'S..&T Apjp?a^L ^o ^1/<2/2<7'&-6
APPELLANT ^onadhar Dongare aged 45 ye? Son ofLate Shri Munshiram Dongare Lineman Grade 2 (Line) Gurur Distribution Centre, C.S.Electricity Board,Gurur, Tahsil Gumr, District Durg (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENT JVEaya Meshram daughter,ofRamchandra Meshram, resident of Ward No. 1, village and Chikhalakasa, Tahsil Balod, post District Durg (C.G.) .^i9^, ^ ^1^^ ^W ^-r J_ APPEALU/S la^-N^^-'J
iL
XI-HC-78
T^f ^I^Krl^, ^Tft^41<o, [cldiy^
^I+KII Sh<4|cb ..r.^.-. :.^/.. ^ 2006
311^1 ^isich (lic'i^<^)3T)
| 3TT^T^rfN^ cT^T3TT^T9bHich |
5^n'^R^f?cf^?T | chi^F<"i41^ ^i^^T^te^rf^FSK ^'3Tf^qr3:n^T |
|---|---|---|
| 02.03.2007 Appetlant by Shri Somkor Respondent by Shri B Advocate, The appetlont-husband is |
aggrieved by on order dated 4,1.2005 \t Verma, Advocate* R.^hosh wi1+i Smt. Meera Jai'swal, |
|
| passed by 7th Additional Distric^ 180-A of 2004 whereby per month was granted till she An appjication (M.C.P.N^ Limitation Act for condonationl filed. The appeal has been fil**^** date ofexpiryof the period of Heard on M.C.P.No.723 o |
The oniy ground urged jn a poor employee and could 28.02.2006. The impugned appejlcnt remained in slumberf noeffortseven to contacthis Having considered the flc am of 1+ie considered opinion perma l 1 t |
. JL .V^.
XI-HC-78
3^T ^I^Krl^, ^Tfl^^Ko, [®ldiy^<
(^;
*1WW{ Sb^lch
^ 200
|OT^T^)Tf^rN)
cT^T3TT^T^HT^|Sll^l M^cb (4<5li^s|<^T)
^cTTafK^fN'^TI^T
- ^
chi^I^i41-i ^iH^T^fte^td^TCTT
^37f^T3n^T|
|---|---|
|t:|in filing this appeal, much less a
bytheappellant.
In view of the abov<
for condonation of delay is dismii
LA.No.2444of 2006for'
accordingly,
Con%quently, this appeal
dismissed, There shall be no ordl
satisfactory ground, has been shown
s, application (M.C.P.No.723 of 2006)
^sed.
4utof turn hearing isalso dispo^d of
t|>eing barred by limitation also stands
l sr asto costs.|
|^|Sd/-
DUipRaosahebDeshmukh
Judge|
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is sustainable given the lapse of over one year.
Whether the appeal remains maintainable when barred by limitation.
Anadhar Dongare
Jayaa Meshram
Dipkarosaheb Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
