Allowed

Rakesh Kumar v. Mani Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Jul 2017CMP.M/2263/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condones a delay of 95 days in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, accepting the applicant's explanation that the delay was due to domestic problems and lack of knowledge regarding the limitation period, noting that the delayed filing occurred upon counsel's advice.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 95 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. The appeal and application are to be registered.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Mani Devi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

CMP(M) No. 2263 of 2016

¶2

18.07.2017

¶3

Present: Mr. N.S. Thakur, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.

¶4

Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2.

¶5

Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

¶6

None for respondent No. 4, though served.

¶7

CMP(M) No 2263 of 2016

¶8

The present application is maintained by the applicant/appellant, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. As per the applicant, the delay has occurred as the award was passed on 02.05.2016 and copy of the same was applied on the same day, which was prepared and attested on 16.05.2016 and was received on 18.05.2016. It is further averred in the application that the applicant could not filed the present appeal within prescribed period of limitation, as due to domestic problem, he could not contact his counsel and the applicant was not having knowledge that the appeal is required to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. However, when the counsel apprised him about the delay, the appeal was drafted and filed without any further delay. The application is duly supported by an affidavit. Reply to the application on behalf of respondent No. 3 has been filed, wherein it was averred that the delay is intentional, hence the present application be dismissed.

¶9

Heard. Taking into consideration the fact that the delay has sufficiently been explained and it was not within the control of the applicant for the reasons stated in the application, each days delay has been explained for the reasons given in the application and as stated hereinabove. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

¶10

Appeal and application be registered.

¶11

Notice. Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate, appears and waives notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. P.S. Chandel, on behalf of respondent No. 3. Issue separate notice to respondent No. 4 returnable within two weeks, on taking steps within two days. List thereafter.

¶12

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge

¶13

18^th July, 2017 (raman)

Rakesh Kumar v. Mani Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. Mani Devi

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

State Vs Balwinder Singh

Shashi Kumar Vs Sunka Ram

State Vs Sunil Dutt

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Nirmala Devi Vs State of Hp

State Vs Yash Pal