Allowed

Dinesh Bindal v. Raj Kanwar

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Dec 2024CMP.M/1427/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing a review petition. The court held that the delay was technical in nature, arising because the petitioner initially filed a downloaded copy of the order instead of a certified one as required by the Registry.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition is allowed; the delay is condoned.

Dinesh Bindal Vs Raj Kanwar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Bindal Vs. Raj Kanwar and others

¶2

20.12.2024

¶3

CMP(M) No. 1427 of 2024 Present : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶4

The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. It has been asserted that the applicant had filed the review petition on 10.7.2024 within 30 days of the passing of order and he had annexed downloaded copy of the order with the review petition, however, he could not annex the certified copy of the same. The Registry raised an objection on 24.7.2024 that certified copy of the order, sought to be reviewed, was required to be placed on record; hence the applicant applied for the certified copy of the order on 31.7.2024 and obtained the same on 12.8.2024. The Registry again raised an objection that the grace period of 30 days could not be given to the applicant, as certified copy was applied after the expiry of the period of limitation. Hence, the delay of 56 days occurred in filing the application and the applicant is seeking condonation of delay.

¶5

The application is opposed by filing reply, taking preliminary objection regarding lack of maintainability. The contents of the application were denied on merits. It was submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the review petition is not maintainable. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.

¶6

3. Heard.

¶7

The stamp of the Registry afÏxed on the review petition shows the date of filing as 10.7.2024. The order was passed on 13.6.2024, therefore, it is apparent that the review petition was filed within the period of 30 days. As per the averments in the application duly supported by an afÏdavit, the certified copy was not filed but only a downloaded copy was filed and therefore, the review petition was rightly held by the Registry to be not properly filed. This was a technical error committed by learned counsel for the applicant and the party should not be faulted for the same. Hence, the present application is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is ordered to be condoned.

¶8

The present application stands disposed of. Review Petition (Filing No.24296 of 2024)

¶9

The delay in filing the review petition has been ordered to be condoned as per order passed in CMP(M) No. 1427 of 2024. It be registered.

¶10

Reply has already been filed. List for

¶11

consideration on 27.12.2024 .

¶12

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶13

December 20^th 2024 (Chander)

Dinesh Bindal v. Raj Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Bindal v. Raj Kanwar

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

Inder Singh Vs State of Hp

Ramjan Shah Vs State of Hp

Firoj Alam Vs State of Hp

Balwant Singh Vs State

Ram Lal Vs State of Hp

Gagan Walia Vs State of Hp and Another