Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Meenakshi Vs. Sanjay

Meenakshi vs Sanjay

Disposition Application allowed Court Delhi Decided Sep 11, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710159

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CM 964/2001 in FAO 526/2001
Subject
Limitation
Disposition
Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5--condensation of delay--Delay of 37 days in filing the appeal--Delay in filing the appeal is due to the negligence of party's counsel--Step taken by party with promptitude but instructions given on her counsel not complied with--Sufficient cause for condensation of delay in filing of...

Key legal issue
Limitation
Outcome / disposition
Application allowed
Acts & sections
Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Meenakshi

Advocate Kamal Katyan, Adv

Respondent

Sanjay

Legal References

Acts
Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5
Reported In
2003(68)DRJ124

Excerpt

limitation act, 1963 - section 5--condensation of delay--delay of 37 days in filing the appeal--delay in filing the appeal is due to the negligence of party's counsel--step taken by party with promptitude but instructions given on her counsel not complied with--sufficient cause for condensation of delay in filing of appeal. ; delay in filing the appeal is due to the negligence of the counsel who was looking after the case of the appellant and was not on account of the negligence of the applicant.;according, application for condensation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. - s.k. mahajan, j.1. there is a delay of 37 days in filing the appeal for the condensation of which an application was filed by the appellant. it is submitted in the application that the appellant had given instructions to her counsel to file appeal against the impugned order and apply for certified copy of the same, however, it was only on 3.10.2001 that the appellant was informed by the counsel that certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree was not applied by the counsel. the appellant is stated to have engaged a new counsel thereafter who applied for certified copy and filed the appeal after certified copy was received. it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the negligence of the counsel who was looking after the case of the appellant and was not on account of the negligence of the applicant. despite service no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent nor reply has been filed. i have, thereforee, no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the application. i, accordingly, allow this application and condone the delay in filing the appeal. the application stands disposed of. fao 526/2001 2. issue notice to the respondent both by ordinary process as well as by registered post, returnable on 09.12.2002.

Full Judgment

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. There is a delay of 37 days in filing the appeal for the condensation of which an application was filed by the appellant. It is submitted in the application that the appellant had given instructions to her counsel to file appeal against the impugned order and apply for certified copy of the same, however, it was only on 3.10.2001 that the appellant was informed by the counsel that certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree was not applied by the counsel. The appellant is stated to have engaged a new counsel thereafter who applied for certified copy and filed the appeal after certified copy was received. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the negligence of the counsel who was looking after the case of the appellant and was not on account of the negligence of the applicant. Despite service no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent nor reply has been filed. I have, thereforee, no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the application. I, accordingly, allow this application and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application stands disposed of.

FAO 526/2001

2. Issue notice to the respondent both by ordinary process as well as by registered post, returnable on 09.12.2002.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial