Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (4.89 seconds)
Krishnappa vs Pillamma W/O Dodda Nagappa Since ... on 18 February, 2013 cites

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

13. Re. Point No. (i) Appellants in the affidavit supporting the application for condonation of delay, namely I.A.No. II filed before Lower Appellate Court have contended that they were not aware of the proceedings before trial Court and only when notices were served on them in final decree proceedings, i.e., FDP 2/2005 they came to know about ex- 15 parte judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 290/1996 and as such they were contesting final decree proceedings and only when application filed by the applicant to come on record claiming to be legatee under the Will in final decree proceedings on the demise of original plaintiff was allowed on 17.1.2007 they contacted their advocate and took steps to file appeal RA 73/2007, as such appeal was filed on 22.10.2007 and on these grounds they sought for condonation of delay. It would be appropriate to notice at this juncture that by adopting go slow tactics and not prosecuting their claim war footing by appellants if they were really aggrieved would not be a ground to condone the delay until and unless cause being shown to be genuine cause or sufficient cause. Absence of negligence or inaction on the part of party seeking condonation of delay cannot be construed as a condition precedent for interpreting sufficient cause. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG AND ANOTHER vs MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 has laid the contours under which application 16 for condonation of delay requires to be considered. The dicta laid down by Apex Court reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document
1