The bench found no sufficient ground or substantial and compelling reason to condone an 114-day delay in filing a Criminal Leave Petition, leading to the dismissal of both the motion for condonation and the petition itself.
Condonation of delay for 114 days denied; CRLLP No.58 of 2013 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.
CRLLP No.58 of 2013
07. 18.02.2021 CRLLP No.58 of 2013 and M.C. No.47 of 2013
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. J.N. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1. None appears for the opposite party no.2-Purna Bhue.
This M.C. has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 114 days in preferring the CRLLP.
We have perused the impugned judgment and evidence of P.W.16. We are of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay in preferring the CRLLP. We have also not found any substantial and compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.
Hence, the M.C. for condonation of delay in preferring the CRLLP is dismissed.
Consequently, the CRLLP is dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
……………………….. S. K. Mishra, J.
….……………………….
Savitri Ratho, J.
TUDU
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient ground exists to condone a delay of 114 days in filing a Criminal Leave Petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Unknown Petitioner
Unknown Respondent
S. K. Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
