The High Court of Delhi through an order dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal on grounds that the explanation for the 254-day delay was not convincing.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal 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.
$~104
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ROHIT TYAGI ..... Appellant
Through : Mr Mukul Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr Udit Gupta, Mr Tushar Gupta and Mr Sumit Kumar Mishra
versus
NEELAM SOOD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr Atulay Nehra
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
O R D E R % 05.12.2016 CM 44867/2016 & FAO(OS) 351/2016
There is a delay of 254 days in filing the present appeal against the order dated 17.02.2016 in IA 15776/2015 [in CS(OS) 3325/2014]. One of the purported reasons given for this delay is that the appellant sought opinion from two other lawyers about this matter, who after going through the voluminous files, advised to take corrective steps and that this process took some time. This ground is as vague as it could be. We are not convinced about the explanation given by the appellant for the delay in filing this appeal.
Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and the appeal also stands dismissed accordingly.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
DECEMBER 05, 2016 SR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 254 days in filing the appeal was properly condoned.
Whether the explanation for the delay is acceptable.
ROHIT TYAGI
NEELAM SOOD AND ORS
BADAR DURREZ AHMED
ASHUTOSH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
