Allowed

Thakur Dass Kumbnani v. Jagdish Kumar Kumbnani & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Mar 2017FAO/463/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the appeal and restored the appellant's suit dismissed in default, holding that the Trial Court erred in refusing restoration. The Court also confirmed the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act regarding the delay.

What did the court decide?

Suit restored to original number; parties directed to appear before Trial Court.

Thakur Dass Kumbnani Vs Jagdish Kumar Kumbnani… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~5

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 463/2016

¶4

THAKUR DASS KUMBNANI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

JAGDISH KUMAR KUMBNANI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dinesh Parashar, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶8

¶9

O R D E R 14.03.2017

¶10

The appellant has challenged the order dated 07^th February, 2013 whereby the suit was dismissed in default. The appellant filed an application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 18^th April, 2013.

¶11

The appellant challenged the order dated 07^th February, 2013 in FAO 162/2016. On 25^th July, 2016, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to challenge the order dated 18^th April, 2013, whereupon this Court dismissed the appeal with liberty as prayed for. This Court, however, directed that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as and when the fresh appeal is filed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is a huge delay in filing this appeal which has not been sufficiently explained. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide order dated 25^th July, 2016, this Court had already held that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. As such, there is no delay in filing this appeal.

¶13

This Court is satisfied that the learned Trial Court erred in not restoring the appellant’s suit which was dismissed in default on 07^th February, 2013. With respect to the delay in preferring the appeal, this Court is satisfied that the appellant is entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶14

The appeal is allowed and the appellant’s suit is restored to its original number.

¶15

The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 25^th April, 2017 at 02:30 p.m. Learned counsels for both the parties have taken note of the date fixed before the Trial Court and they waive off issuance of fresh notice.

¶16

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signatures of the Court Master.

¶17

J.R. MIDHA, J.

¶18

MARCH 14, 2017 rsk

Thakur Dass Kumbnani v. Jagdish Kumar Kumbnani & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Dass Kumbnani v. Jagdish Kumar Kumbnani & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Delhi Multi Story Building Employees Congress through Its President R.K. Nagar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

S K Singhal & Ors. Vs Nirmala Devi & Ors.

Shyam Gupta & Ors. Vs the State Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rsr Retail Private Limited & Anr. Vs Mukesh Trehan

Swaran Katyal Vs Surinder Pal Kapoor & Ors.

Suresh Kumar Vs Ltg India Pvt. Limited