Dismissed

Kanav Sood v. Ram Shah

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2014RSA/220/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second appeal as time-barred. The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay regarding a 198-day gap but withdrew it. Subsequent orders granted last opportunities to file a fresh application, which the appellant never done.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as being time-barred due to failure to file an application for condonation of delay despite being given opportunities.

Kanav Sood Vs Ram Shah — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA No.220 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.08.2014

¶3

Kanav Sood

¶4

......Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ram Shah

¶7

......Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶9

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶10

2. To be referred to reporters or not?

¶11

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

¶13

Present: Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶14

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)

¶15

This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for possession of the suit property, by way of specific performance of agreement to sell, has been dismissed.

¶16

At this stage, it may be noticed that the appeal had been filed initially on 14.5.2012 and the vakalatnama in favour of the counsel representing the appellant was signed by Sh. Kamlesh C.Mahajan, who had represented the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court. However, on raising the objection by the Registry, the appellant refiled the instant appeal by placing on record a vakalatnama dated 26.11.2012 in favour of the counsel signed by Sh.Arvind Sood, father of the appellant, who is alleged to be General Power of Attorney of the appellant.

¶17

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2014.08.07 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶18

The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 198 days in filing the instant appeal.

¶19

The said miscellaneous application came up for hearing on 13.3.2014 and the following order was passed:

¶20

“CM-620-C-2013

¶21

After arguing the case for some time, counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw the present application for condonation of delay with liberty to file fresh one giving better particulars.

¶22

The appellant has no objection in case he is allowed to do so on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.

¶23

Ordered accordingly.

¶24

This application is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- with the High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶25

RSA-220-2013(O&M)

¶26

Adjourned to 7.5.2014.”

¶27

At this stage, the order dated 7.5.2014 may also be noticed:

¶28

“The costs, as imposed, have been deposited. However, no fresh application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in terms of the order dated 13.3.2014.

¶29

More time is sought to do the needful.

¶30

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2014.08.07 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶31

Last opportunity is granted.

¶32

Adjourned to 4.8.2014.

¶33

Let the needful be done before the next

¶34

date of hearing.”

¶35

Despite the fact that on 13.3.2014, the appellant was allowed to file fresh application subject to payment of costs and was given further last opportunity vide order dated 7.5.2014, needful has not been done till date i.e. 4.8.2014. No application for condonation of delay has been filed.

¶36

Admittedly, there is a delay of 198 days in filing this appeal and there is no application making prayer to condone such a delay.

¶37

In view of the above, this Court has no option but to dismiss this appeal being time barred.

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

August 04, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE

¶40

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2014.08.07 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Kanav Sood v. Ram Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanav Sood v. Ram Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harinder Singh Maller Vs Baljinder and Ors.

Chaman Lal & Ors. Vs Kailash & Ors.

Amarjit Kaur & Ors. Vs Bhajan Kaur @ Harbhajan Kaur

Bhinder Singh Vs Jagpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh

State of Haryana Thrg Collector Jind Vs Neha Int. Bhatta Samiti Kharal

Gurmail Singh Vs Labh Kaur