Allowed condonation of delay to restore an appeal dismissed in default. Subsequently, the appellant withdrew the appeal, leading to its dismissal and disposal of the pending restoration applications.
Condoned delay of 62 days, recalled the default order, restored the appeal, and subsequently dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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.
$~1
DAWESH BISHNOI
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Advocate
versus
MALINI BISHNOI ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA O R D E R
%
% 22.05.2018 CM APPL.19835/2018 (Restoration) & CM APPL.19836/2018 (Condonation of Delay)
By way of the present applications, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the application seeking restoration of the appeal, as well as, restoration of the appeal itself, which came to be dismissed in default by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2018.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant states that he seeks the above prayers with a view to praying for withdrawal of the appeal itself.
In this view of the matter, it is not considered necessary to issue notice to the non-applicant/respondent.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/2017
Page 1 of 3
The application seeking condonation of delay is predicated on the assertion that owing to the inability of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant and his inadvertence, the application seeking restoration of the appeal was instituted belatedly. It is, therefore, urged that the consequence of the default of counsel ought not to be visited upon the litigant.
In view of the foregoing and in the interest of justice, the application is allowed. The delay of 62 days in filing the application seeking restoration of the appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
The application seeking restoration of the appeal once again asseverates that it was on account of the inadvertence and unforeseen circumstances of the counsel in question that there was no appearance on behalf of the applicant/appellant, when the same came to be dismissed in default on 23.02.2018.
In view of the submission first made on behalf of counsel hereinabove, the application is allowed. The order dated 23.02.2018 is recalled. The accompanying appeal is restored to its original number.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/2017 & CM APPL.34968/2017 (Stay)
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, as aforestated, has instructions to withdraw this appeal.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/2017
Page 2 of 3
The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of. The pending application also stands disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 22, 2018 dn
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 172/2017
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay of 62 days for restoration of an appeal dismissed in default should be allowed.
Whether the order dismissing the appeal in default should be recalled to restore the appeal pending its withdrawal.
Dawesh Bishnoi
Malini Bishnoi
Siddharth Mridul
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 against a decree or order of a Family Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
