The court extended time to file an application under Section 40 of the Public Trust Act accepted with a ten-day delay, condoning the delay due to bona fide reasons, and directed the lower court to proceed on merits.
Time limit extended to date of actual filing; matter remanded to court below for decision on merits.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPL. NO.314/2013 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.835/1996
DATE OF ORDER : : 6th January, 2016
**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ *********
Shri Ajay Tantia for the appellant Shri Neeraj K. Tiwari for the respondents. ##
Application has been filed by Brij Mohan
Khandelwal‐respondent no.4 contending that pursuant to judgement of this Court dated 1.11.2012 although he filed application under Section 40 of the Public Trust Act before the Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar, but due to bonafide reasons and circumstances beyond his control, this application could not be filed within 40 days stipulated in the aforesaid judgement. The application has been filed with delay of ten days.
Having regard to the facts of the case, the time to file application is extended upto the date on which it was actually filed. The court below may proceed to decide the application on merits.
The application is disposed of.
RS/9
All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed. (Ravi
2
Sharma,P.A.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of ten days in filing an application under Section 40 of the Public Trust Act could be condoned due to bona fide reasons.
Whether the application filed with delay could be admitted for decision on merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Brij Mohan Khandelwal
Respondents
Mohammad Rafiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
