Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Har Mohinder Pal Singh vs Rajendra Pal Singh on 3 November, 2017
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.6 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20404/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-06-2017
in CLMA No. 4534/2017 in Civil Revision No. 31 of 2017 passed by
the High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital)
HAR MOHINDER PAL SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAJENDRA PAL SINGH Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.71623/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.71625/2017-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T.)
Date : 03-11-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.C. Maheshwari, Sr.Adv.
Mr. H.C. Kharbanda,Adv.
Mr. Jabar Singh,Adv.
Mr. Nikhar Berry,Adv.
For M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. (KUSUM LATA SYAL) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT BRANCH OFFICER Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2017.11.07 Signed order is placed on the file. 17:06:19 IST Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.18060 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20404 OF 2017) HAR MOHINDER PAL SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS RAJEMDRA PAL SINGH ...RESPONDENT O R D E R Leave granted.
None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
The appellant has filed an application under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 which was dismissed by the trial court. The appellant has filed a revision petition. Since there was delay of 254 days in filing the revision petition, application for condonation of delay has also been filed. The High Court has rejected the application for condonation of delay and as a consequence dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant.
-2-
After going through the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant has given sufficient reason for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition and therefore delay should have been condoned and revision petition should have also been heard. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 28.6.2017 passed by the High Court is set aside. Delay in filing the revision petition (C) No. 31 of 2017 is condoned. The matter is remitted back to the High Court to decide further revision on merit.
…...............J ( A.K. SIKRI) …..............J (ASHOK BHUSHAN) New Delhi Dated November 3, 2017