https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309116 Delay in filing the first appeal was not condoned because no sufficient cause was shown; lack of funds to pay court fee was rejected, and the Court noted that a defective appeal could have been filed and the deficiency cured later under Section 149 CPC read with Section 4 of the Court Fees Act. Specific performance was also refused because agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh could not be transferred to a non-agriculturist without prior permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and the assignee had no contractual basis or seller consent for that transfer. The appeals therefore failed on limitation and on merits. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Aug 2023 21:25:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309116 Delay in filing the first appeal was not condoned because no sufficient cause was shown; lack of funds to pay court fee was rejected, and the Court noted that a defective appeal could have been filed and the deficiency cured later under Section 149 CPC read with Section 4 of the Court Fees Act. Specific performance was also refused because agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh could not be transferred to a non-agriculturist without prior permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and the assignee had no contractual basis or seller consent for that transfer. The appeals therefore failed on limitation and on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309116