Charan Dass & Ors. Vs. Sali Ram (Dead) by LRs & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 680-683 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9270-9273 of 1999 )
Petitioner: Charan Dass & Ors.
Respondent: Sali Ram (Dead) by LRs & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 680-683 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9270-9273 of 1999 )
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR, D.P. MOHAPATRA & YOGESH KUMAR SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 31, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 136 – Delay of 122 days in filing review before High Court. Held that on facts and the ground raised in Review appli-cation High Court ought to have condoned the delay : Delay con-doned and Review application restored for decision on merits. (Paras 4,5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent-plaintiffs who are the only contesting parties in these proceedings. Respondent no.3 who is dead was ex-parte before the High Court. Her name shall stand deleted.
4. In our view, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and the ground raised in the Review Petition for condoning the delay of 122 days the High Court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the Review Petition.
5. Only on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, these appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 30th November 1998 dismissing the Review Petition being Civil Review No. NIL of 1998 on the ground of limitation is set aside. Delay in filing
the Review Petition is condoned. The Review Petition is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to re-decide
the same on merits in accordance with law.
6. No costs.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent-plaintiffs who are the only contesting parties in these proceedings. Respondent no.3 who is dead was ex-parte before the High Court. Her name shall stand deleted.
4. In our view, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and the ground raised in the Review Petition for condoning the delay of 122 days the High Court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the Review Petition.
5. Only on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, these appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 30th November 1998 dismissing the Review Petition being Civil Review No. NIL of 1998 on the ground of limitation is set aside. Delay in filing
the Review Petition is condoned. The Review Petition is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to re-decide
the same on merits in accordance with law.
6. No costs.
