Petitioner appealed against the First Appellate Court's order condoning an 86-day delay in restoring a dismissed appeal. The High Court found no justification to interfere and dismissed the revision.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; impugned order allowing condonation of delay sustained.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Civil Revision Petition No.2094 of 2017
ORDER:
The revision arises out of an order passed by the First Appellate Court allowing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
Date: 21-04-2017
Ksn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in condoning a delay of 86 days for restoration of an appeal.
Whether this court ought to interfere with the order allowing delay and imposing costs.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
