Chandrakant Chaturvedi Vs Mandan Lal

It may also be observed that the appellant expired on 20.03.2012 and application bearing IA No. 21620 dt. 20.07.2012 has been filed under Order 22 Rule 3. Thereafter, an application bearing No.5883 dt.04.03.2013 has also been filed seeking condonation of delay u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶13

Counsel submits that the appeal did not abate as the time was granted by this Court to move an appropriate application for condonation of delay u/Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and the same was lateron filed.

¶14

After taking note of the submissions made, this Court finds that sufficient justification has been offered for restoration and the delay as well.

¶15

Accordingly, the application u/S 5 of the Limitation Act &

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRES-144/2014]

¶18

restoration application both stand allowed and the Civil First Appeal N0.286/2005 is ordered to be restored to its original number subject to depositing of Rs.2,000/- by the appellant with the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. If the intimation about deposit is received then the matter may come up before the Court immediately thereafter. If the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the application stands dismissed without further reference to the

¶19

Court. (JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA)J. S.Kumawat Jr. P.A.

Chandrakant Chaturvedi v. Mandan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Chaturvedi v. Mandan Lal

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

Om Prakash Bhumla Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sumit Khandelwal Vs Metropolitan MAGI.NO31 and Ors.

Smt Kesari Devi and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Narendra Karora Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Surendra Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.