Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
This Petition Has Been Filed By The vs Ram Phal. He Would Further Submit In His ... on 19 August, 2009 cites

Banarsi And Ors vs Ram Phal on 17 February, 2003

3.The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:- The 3rd defendant/petitioner herein falsely claims that she was having right of possession over the suit property and actually there was no right for the 3rd defendant/petitioner in the suit property and she was not aggrieved by the decree passed by the Lower Court and she has no locus standi to file any appeal. He would rely upon the Judgment of this Court reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1989 between Banarsi and others Vs. Ram Phal. He would further submit in his argument that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not sufficient to condone the delay of 371 days. The plea of the petitioner that the condonation of the delay should be liberally considered can not be applied to the petitioner, since she was aware of the passing of Judgment and Decree and the blame levelled by her against the respondents 2 & 3 was not shown to be true and therefore there was no bonafide on the part of the petitioner and in such circumstances claim for condonation of delay of 371 days need not be granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 268 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Sivakumar vs R.Sengodan on 27 June, 2007

The husband of the petitioner is said to have executed a settlement deed infavour of the respondents 2 & 3, their daughters, and by virtue of the settlement deed, they are stated to be in possession of the suit property. In such circumstances, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to contest the Judgment and Decree passed by the Lower Court, against them. Therefore, the reasons mentioned in the Judgment that the sufficient cause alleged by the petitioner for condoning the delay are found to have been complied by the petitioner. Therefore, the Judgment of this court referred in 2007(5) MLJ 718 between Sivakumar and Another Vs. R.Sengodan and 2007(3) MLJ 631 between G.Jayaraman Vs. Devarajan are not applicable to this case.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - M Chockalingam - Full Document

Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs vs Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr on 3 November, 2008

12.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner has putforth acceptable explanation for the condonation of delay of 371 days and therefore, the Judgment as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent made in between 2009 (2) MLJ 1047 (SC ) between Punklik Jalam Patil vs. Exe.Eng.Jalgaon Medium Project and another is also not helpful to the 1st respondent at this stage. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has offered correct explanation for the condonation of delay caused in preferring the appeal. Therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 371 days, but it should be on a condition to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Concillation by the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 424 - B S Reddy - Full Document
1