Allowed

Riazuddin through Lrs v. Mohd. Nasir

Delhi HC3 Oct 2016C.R.P./77/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning a one-month delay in filing an appeal. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the lower court to hear the appeal on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.2.2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court of Additional District Judge to hear the appeal on merits.

Riazuddin through Lrs Vs Mohd. Nasir — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~A-11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.R.P. 77/2016

¶4

RIAZUDDIN THROUGH LRS ..... Petitioner Through Mohd.Iqbal, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

MOHD. NASIR ..... Respondent Through Mr.Arun Sharma, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

¶8

¶9

O R D E R 03.10.2016

¶10

By the present petition the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 19.2.2016 by which an application filed by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed.

¶11

The petitioner filed a suit for possession, mesne profit, damages, permanent and mandatory injunction. The suit was dismissed on 14.09.2015 after trial. Against the said order the petitioner filed an RFA before the trial court. Alongwith the RFA an application was filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was filed on 16.11.2015. There is hence a delay of about one month in filing of the appeal. The trial court dismissed the application holding that a perusal of the application for condonation of delay will show it is conspicuously vague, there is no computation of period of limitation.

¶12

It is true that the appeal should have been drafted in a better manner. The only grounds stated in the application is that the petitioners applied for

¶13

CRP.77/2016

¶14

Page 1

¶15

certified copy and thereafter some days passed in discussion and preparation of the appeal and thereafter after passing of Dusshera and Diwali holidays and hence the appeal has been filed.

¶16

In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case, a liberal view would have to be taken about the issue of condonation of delay. The delay is only of about 30 days and if one were to interpret the facts in a liberal manner sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay.

¶17

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.2.2016 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court of Additional District Judge who will now hear the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 96 CPC on merits.

¶18

Parties to appear before the concerned court on 21.11.2016.

JAYANT NATH, J

OCTOBER 03, 2016

CRP.77/2016

Page 2

Riazuddin through Lrs v. Mohd. Nasir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riazuddin through Lrs v. Mohd. Nasir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvinder Singh Jaggi Vs Manish Anand

M/S L & T Finance Ltd. Vs Bilkeesh Bano & Anr.

Poonam Kumar Vs Pushpa Kumar & Anr.

Nitin Wig Vs Chander Parkash Mehra & Ors.

Usha Devi Vs Dalip Kumar & Ors.

Arun Kumar Vs Sant Lal Arora