This judgment condoned a 24-day delay in filing a civil miscellaneous petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and restored the impugned miscellaneous appeal to its file for further proceedings upon removal of defects.
I.A. No.556 of 2017 is allowed; M.A. No.120 of 2015 is restored to file for defects to be removed within four weeks.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P No.117 of 2016
Ram Gopal Sharma …… Petitioner Versus TRF Ltd. & Ors. ….. Respondents --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. G. N. Mishra, Advocate ---------
05/Dated: 16th June, 2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, in course of day.
Office to check and verify.
I.A. No.556 of 2017
The above interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 24 days in preferring the civil miscellaneous petition.
Learned counsel for the respondents has not raised any serious objection.
Heard. In view of the reasons assigned in para – 3 & 4 of the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out accordingly, the delay is condoned. I.A. No.556 of 2017 stands allowed.
C.M.P No.117 of 2016
This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of M.A. No.120 of 2015 to its original file, which was dismissed on 08.01.2016 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 11.12.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the counsel could not communicate to the petitioner that peremptory order was passed for removing the defects, due to which, the petitioner could not take necessary steps resulting in dismissal of the miscellaneous appeal on 08.01.2016. That there has been no willful laches or deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioner rather it was due to non-communication of the order by the counsel, the appropriate steps could not be taken.
- 02 -
It is submitted that the petitioner has a good case and if M.A. No.120 of 2015 is not restored to its original file, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Learned counsel for the respondents is in attendance. Heard. Being satisfied with the reasons assigned, the civil miscellaneous petition stands allowed and M.A. No.120 of 2015 is restored to its original file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner shall remove the defects as pointed out by the office in M.A. No.120 of 2015 within four weeks, failing which, it shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench.
If the defects are so removed, office to list M.A. No.120 of 2015 on 03.08.2017.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
Chandan/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in filing the civil miscellaneous petition for restoration can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the cited miscellaneous appeal should be restored to the file for removal of defects and further hearing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Gopal Sharma
TRF Ltd.
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
