The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay in re-filing, but subsequently dismissed the F.Appeal as withdrawn by the appellant. The appellant chose to explore remedies in execution proceedings instead of pursuing the appeal further.
Application for condonation of delay allowed; Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
$~30
HARDEV SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr Manjit Singh Ahluwalia & Mr J.K. Singh, Advs.
versus
MUKESH AGGARWAL & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Desh Raj & Mr Mohit Singhal, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R % 08.01.2016
CM No. 525/2016 (Exemption)
CM No. 526/2016 (Condonation of delay of 81 days in re-filing)
FAO 13/2016 & CM No. 524/2016 (Stay)
Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act), has given the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by excluding the time spent by the appellant between 12.04.2013 and 19.04.2014. The appellant had, as a matter of fact, filed a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, on 12.04.2013, albeit before the Civil Judge. As per the impugned judgement, the Civil Judge “dismissed” the petition for want of jurisdiction, on 19.04.2014. Vide the impugned judgement the trial court has excluded the said period, as indicated above; despite which, there is a delay beyond the time prescribed under Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 08, 2016 kk
FAO 13/2016
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay of 81 days in filing a second appeal under Section 34 of the 1996 Act should be allowed.
Whether the appellant's initial petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction by the Civil Judge excluded time for limitation purposes under the Limitation Act.
Whether to allow withdrawal of the appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs M/s Popular Construction Co.Relied on¶15
Union of India vs M/s Popular Construction Co. AIR 2001 SC 4010 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
HARDEV SINGH
MUKESH AGGARWAL
RAJIV SHAKDHER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
