Full Text
Translation output
RSA No.326/2014 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th November, 2014
Date of Decision: 11th November, 2014
RSA 326/2014
SATISH KUMAR BHAKRI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate
SATISH KUMAR BHAKRI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
MUKESH MARWAHA ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
C.M.No.18364/2014 (u/S 151 CPC)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 18367/2014 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act & Sec.151 CPC)
The delay of 10 days’ in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.
The application is disposed of.
RSA No. 326/2014 & C.M.No.18365/2014 (for stay) & CM No.
18366/2014 (delay)
A bare perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay
2014:DHC:5896 RSA No.326/2014 Page 2 reveals that appellant had earlier filed a second appeal which was dismissed as not pressed on 30th May, 2014 and a bare perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that no liberty was granted to the appellant to file a fresh second appeal.
In view of the aforesaid, this second appeal is not maintainable and is otherwise also barred by limitation as there is no explanation for the delay occasioned.
This second appeal and application are dismissed as not maintainable.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 11, 2014 mb 2014:DHC:5896
C.M.No.18364/2014 (u/S 151 CPC)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 18367/2014 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act & Sec.151 CPC)
The delay of 10 days’ in re-filing the accompanying appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.
The application is disposed of.
RSA No. 326/2014 & C.M.No.18365/2014 (for stay) & CM No.
18366/2014 (delay)
A bare perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay
2014:DHC:5896 RSA No.326/2014 Page 2 reveals that appellant had earlier filed a second appeal which was dismissed as not pressed on 30th May, 2014 and a bare perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that no liberty was granted to the appellant to file a fresh second appeal.
In view of the aforesaid, this second appeal is not maintainable and is otherwise also barred by limitation as there is no explanation for the delay occasioned.
This second appeal and application are dismissed as not maintainable.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 11, 2014 mb 2014:DHC:5896