Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka vs Nagappa on 28 June, 1985

Navinchandra N. Majithia vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 September, 2000

The same fate had fallen on the view adopted by the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Madhukars case when a Division Bench has subsequently overruled it, (State of Karnataka vs. Nagappa, AIR 1986 Karnataka 199). N. Venkatachala and S.A. Hakeem, JJ (as they then were) dealt with the background of introducing Rule 3-A in Order 41 of the Code and after discussion held that sub-rule (1) of Rule 3-A is mandatory. However, learned Judges pointed out that sub- rules (2) and (3) have been employed by the legislature for highlighting the purpose of introducing such a new rule. The following passage from the judgement of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court can usefully be quoted in this context:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 393 - K T Thomas - Full Document

Smt. Umrao Bai And Ors. vs Sardarilal Khatri on 22 March, 1996

It is obvious that the decision of Privy Council was behind, the making of this amendment. Now, the question whether the procedure provided by this rule is mandatory. It is so in the sense no Court can by-pass it and decide the case on merits. It may not be mandatory in the sense that if the memorandum of appeal does not accompany an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit as provided under Order XLI, Rule 3A (1) of the C.P.C. then appeal is liable to be rejected. This is the procedural part of the section which was not held to be mandatory in the case reported in State of Karnataka v. Nagappa (AIR 1986 Kant 199) (supra). However, that Court also says that the compliance of the rule is mandatory. The non-compliance of rule in toto would result in breach of Section 3 of Limitation Act. Even without that rule the appeal which was barred by time could not be allowed in absence of extension of time for filing the appeal. Section 3 of Limitation Act is addressed to the Court. It bars the jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with the appeal when an appeal is barred by time. It renders the lower appellate Court's decree without jurisdiction. Thus in a limited sense a question of jurisdiction is involved.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dilip Bhai Gajrota And Ors. vs Contractor Lime Gotan on 31 October, 1995

15. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. Nagappa (AIR 1986 Kant 199), referring to the provisions of Rule 3-A of the Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code, held that the rule is mandatory in the sense that the appellant cannot, without such application being decided, insist upon the Court to hear the time-barred appeal but held the rule to be not mandatory in so far as it require the appeal to be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. It was held by the Karnataka High Court that opportunity to remedy the defect caused by non-filing of the application along with the appeal, should be allowed at a later stage. The decision of the learned single Judge reported in AIR 1984 Kant 40 was, to that extent, overruled. The judgment of the Court was delivered by HonTsle Mr. Justice Venkatachala of the Karnataka High Court (as he then was) and the Division Bench observed thus:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - V G Palshikar - Full Document

Rajkumar Jindal vs Orissa Forest Corporation And Anr. on 3 April, 1995

Therefore, what a Court should do when a time barred appeal is presented before it without being accompanied by an application for condonation of delay is to regard such presentation as defective for non-compliance of Rule 3A (1) and to afford to the appellant a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect instead of dismissing the appeal outright or in limine. If the appellant disregards the opportunity afforded, the Court should dismiss the appeal. When the defect is remedied within the time allowed by the Court, the appeal should be regarded as one properly presented as on the date of its original presentation in that remedying of such procedural defect necessarily relates back to the date of original presentation of the appeal. My view receives support from decisions of not only various other High Courts i.e. Kerala, Patna, Bombay and Karnataka High Courts in Maya Devi v. M.K. Krishna Bhattathiri, AIR 1981 Kerala 240, State of Bihar v. Ray Chandi Nath Sahay, AIR 1983 Patna 139, M. Das Gupta v. Prakash K. Shah, AIR 1984 Bom 390 and State of Karnataka v. Nagappa, AIR 1986 Karnataka 199, but also decision of this Court in Dilabar v. Sulabha, AIR 1986 Orissa 38.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Sohan Ram vs Upendra Nath Mohanta & Another on 29 January, 2026

A Division Bench of Karanataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. Nagappa, AIR 1986 Kar. 199, has held that a proceeding filed belatedly cannot be turned down on the ground of delay per se without giving an opportunity to the litigant to file an application for condoning delay, if the statute provides for condonation. The following observations are worth adverting to:
Orissa High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - C Dash - Full Document

Radhika Krishna Murthy, vs The Assistant Commissioner, on 12 August, 2021

(b) Why the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period of 60 days is apparently within the knowledge of the counsel who had sworn to the affidavit which supported the subject application; this court is at loss to know as to how such an affidavit can be found fault with merely because it is sworn to by the counsel and not his client; ideally speaking, the parties should swear to the affidavit supporting the application of the kind, is true; however, at times counsel do this when facts are in their 4 knowledge as well; if this was not the correct procedure, nothing prevented the K.A.T. from asking the party to swear to another affidavit supporting the application; a trivial mistake, if at all it is, is celebrated by the K.A.T. by dismissing the appeal itself on that ground; this is not a happy thing to happen in the adjudicatory process; a Division Bench of this court in STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. NAGAPPA, AIR 1986 KANT 199 has held that even a time barred appeal cannot be rejected without giving an opportunity to the appellant to file an application for the condonation of delay; this position of law too comes to the aid of the petitioner;
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K S Dixit - Full Document
1