The court dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition challenging an order that allowed condonation of a three-year plus delay in filing a first appeal, imposing a Rs.5,000/- cost. The court relied on an Apex Court precedent to uphold the lower appellate court's decision to allow condonation.
Civil miscellaneous petition stood dismissed.
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.
C.M.P. No.804 of 2018
Heard Shri Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil miscellaneous petition involves a challenge to the order allowing the application for condonation of delay by the trial court in entertaining the regular first appeal and thereby condoning the delay of three years and odd days on imposition of cost of Rs.5,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the grounds taken in the court below in the matter of condonation of delay submitted that there was virtually no ground in condoning the delay and further in the event of condonation of delay, the plaintiff is consequently prejudiced.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, taking into account the findings of the lower appellate court in the matter of condonation of delay and further taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ummer versus Pattengal Subida as reported in 2018 (3) SCALE 696, this Court finds, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “when substantial justice as well as technicalities are there, the substantial justice must prevail over technicalities fitted with against each other”. For the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and for the award of cost in allowing the application for condonation of delay for the involvement of civil dispute requiring a contested judgment and decree, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and thus, dismisses the civil miscellaneous petition for having no merit.
Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
(Biswanath Rath, J.)
…….…………………
Ayas
2
3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of three years and odd days should be condoned to entertain the regular first appeal.
Whether the order of the trial court allowing condonation of delay imposes any prejudice to the respondent what allows the plaintiff to be prejudiced.
Whether substantial justice must prevail over technicalities when there is an internal conflict between the two.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ummer versus Pattengal SubidaRelied on¶4
2018 (3) SCALE 696
Petitioner
Respondent
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
