Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
8. It is pertinent to note that in the case before us, in the impugned judgment, the learned Judge of the executing Court observed that in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, the party cannot be denied its right at the threshold of the law of justice on a mere technical ground and by recording its satisfaction, the executing Court held that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause and, therefore, it was inclined to condone the delay of 48 days in filing the petition for review of the order passed in E.A. No. 42/95 dated 15-6-1995. The point indeed is well taken that at the threshold of a proceeding a right could not be denied to a party on mere technical grounds if the petitioner succeeded in showing sufficient cause for delay. However, the maintainability of the petition for condoning delay was not considered by the lower Court inasmuch as the lower Court did not examine whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for condoning delay in filing review petition in view of the specific bar envisaged by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In that view of the matter, therefore, in my opinion, notwithstanding the cause of rendering substantial justice, when the jurisdiction is categorically and specifically excluded in a certain class of proceedings from consideration the petition for condoning delay, the impugned order passed by the lower Court condoning the delay of 48 days in filing the review petition for review of an order passed under Order 21, C.P.C. cannot be upheld mainly because the very jurisdiction to consider the petition for condoning the delay did not exist.
Mohinder Singh And Ors. vs Teja Singh And Ors. on 29 August, 1978
12. On behalf of the respondent, the decision in the case of Mohinder Singh v. Teja Singh, was cited. However, the said decision deals with the powers of the Court under Section 152. C.P.C. to rectify clerical mistakes and errors arising from accidental slip, but not on the proposition with which we are confronted in this case and in that view of the matter, the decision cited by the learned Government Pleader for the respondent cannot be taken into consideration. Section 152, C.P.C. has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Section 152 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Amending Act, 1897
Y. Yadaiah vs B. Balapershad on 24 February, 1978
13. Same is the case with the decision of this High Court in Y. Yadaiah v. B. Balaperishad, AIR 1978 AP 395 and the same cannot be invoked for the purpose of ascertaining whether any proceeding by way of an off-shoot passed under Order XXI of C.P.C. is covered by the bar envisaged under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
1