Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.36 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Shyam Sundar Sarma vs Pannalal Jaiswal And Others on 4 November, 2004
(a) The order dismissing the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act intending to prefer appeal is an appealable one and the
revisional proceedings under any provision of law does not lie in view
of the ratio laid down in case of Shyam Sundar Sarma v. Pannalal
Jaiswal (AIR 2005 SC 226) (supra),
Md. Ali Sardar & Others vs Hossain Ali Mondal Being Dead on 16 February, 2012
In view of the ratio in the above decision rendered by this Court in case
of Md. Ali Sardar (supra) there is no hesitation to arrive at the finding that
the rejection of an application for condonation of delay amounts to the
rejection of the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC
which is an appealable order under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, application for dismissal of Section 5 in connection thereto will
obviously be an appealable but order of dismissal of Section 5 application
simpliciter is of no effect.
Section 8 in West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Md. Oli Sheikh (Since Deceased) & Ors vs Tarani Mahato & Anr on 5 August, 2010
"While thinking this issue in case of reverse situation namely
when application for condonation of delay is allowed obviously it
cannot be an appealable one as no decision is rendered either way
on decree either in case of appeal or in case of proceeding under
Order IX Rule 13 as doctrine of deemed finality does not apply. It
appears that views taken in the case of Md. Oli Sheikh and Ors. v.
Tarani Mahato and Anr. by the learned Single Judge of this Court
runs counter to our observation as above, hence it cannot be accepted
to be correct proposition of law.
Gobinda Malik vs Gopal Chandra Ghosh on 6 April, 2011
Legal proposition on this aspect
enunciated by the learned single Judge in case of Sri. Gobinda Malik
v. Sri Gopal Chandra Ghosh (C.O. No. 808 of 2011) is in our view,
correct. In view of the above discussion we conclude as follows while
deciding the reference:
1