TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Delayed Second Appeal Petition for Non-Compliance with Filing Requirements</h1> <h3>Padmavathi Versus Kalu</h3> The petition to condone the delay in filing the second appeal was dismissed due to the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay and the failure to comply ... - Issues: Delay in filing second appeal, sufficiency of cause for delay, compliance with Order 41 Rule 3A (1) regarding condonation of delay.The judgment pertains to an application seeking to condone the delay in filing a second appeal. The appeal was filed on 27-11-1979, while the application to condone the delay was submitted on 6-12-1979. The delay was attributed to the appellant being bed-ridden and unaware of the appeal's dismissal on 25-7-1976 until being informed by her son on 8-11-1979. It was claimed that the son, who assisted the appellant, was not competent to handle court matters, and the appellant relied on the vakil's clerk for the suit. However, no affidavit from the vakil's clerk was provided, and the explanation for the delay from 25-7-1978 to 27-11-1979 was deemed unsatisfactory. The absence of supporting affidavits led to the dismissal of the petition.Another aspect raised was the compliance with Order 41 Rule 3A (1), which mandates filing an application supported by an affidavit to justify the delay in presenting an appeal beyond the specified limitation period. The judge highlighted the importance of this provision, referencing a previous decision and emphasizing the necessity for the condonation petition to accompany the appeal. The judge admitted overlooking this rule in a prior judgment and acknowledged the significance of adhering to it. Consequently, the petition was also dismissed on the grounds of non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 3A (1).In conclusion, the petition to condone the delay in filing the second appeal was dismissed due to the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay and the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of submitting the condonation petition along with the appeal as per Order 41 Rule 3A (1). The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the judgment serves as a reminder of the procedural obligations regarding the condonation of delay in appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
