Appellant challenged impugned order noting erroneous dates regarding suit limitation. Court held factual errors must be rectified via review petition and dismissed appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to file review.
Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; Liberty granted to file review petition.
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.
$~2
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Aashish Anand, Adv. with Mr. Paramhans Sahani, Adv.
versus
M/S PROACTIVE UNIVERSAL TRADING CO LTD & ANR
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
Learned counsel for the appellant invites our attention to certain dates
mentioned in para 6 of the impugned order and submits that the date of 17th
November, 2012 as the last entry is incorrectly mentioned whereas the correct date is 19th November, 2012 and if that is taken, the suit would be within the period of limitation.
If there is any factual error in the matter, the petitioner is required to file a review petition bringing this fact to the notice of the learned Single Judge and thereafter, it would be for the learned Single Judge to correct the said error, if any.
The counsel for the appellant prays for liberty to file a review petition.
With liberty as prayed for, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
The question of condonation of delay in re-filing the civil suit may also be taken up in the review petition.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J JANUARY 14, 2019 /ak
3 issues framed by the court
Whether limitation correction can be addressed in appeal or requires review petition.
Whether appeal lies when suit permit offers liberty to file review petition.
Mistake in recording dates in impugned order and remedy for appellant.
RMS CONSULTANTS PVT LTD
M/S PROACTIVE UNIVERSAL TRADING CO LTD
V. KAMESWAR RAO
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
