BISH RAM Vs. KALAWATI
LAWS(HPH)-1980-3-5
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 17,1980

BISH RAM Appellant
VERSUS
KALAWATI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SMT. RAJ BALA V. PRAMOD KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAYA SITARAM GADKARI V. SECRETARY OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ADMINISTRATOR HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE VS. ASSOCIATED BUILDERS [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL AND SONS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
FIRM HEMRAJ DHANNALAL VS. AMBARAM BHAWANIRAM SURAJMAL [REFERRED TO]
MARIAMBAI VS. HANIFABAI [REFERRED TO]
DINA NATH VS. MUNSHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA RANJAN MAJUMDAR VS. MANIKGANJ LOAN OFFICE LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.D.MISRA,.J. - (1.)This is an application under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal,
(2.)It was on 19th August, 1978 that the Senior Sub -Judge, Solan decreed the suit of possession against the present applicants. In the alternative, a decree "for rupees 5,000/ - as past arrears for maintenance and rupees 400/ - per month till her life time" was passed in favour of the plaintiffs (the respondents) and against the defendants (the appellants). An appeal against the decree was filed by the appellants through Shri Bhupinder Singh, Advocate, Solan on 5th October, 1978. On 12th April, 1979 the appeal was withdrawn and was filed in this court on 13th April, 1979.
(3.)It is averred that when the decree was passed the appellants were under detention in a criminal case pending against them and that they were released much later after the announcement of the judgment. The appeal is stated to have been filed before the District Judge Solan on account of mistaken advice given by their counsel. It is also averred that when the appellants came out from jail, they consulted Shri Malook Singh, Advocate of Chandigarh and under his advice the appeal was withdrawn from the Court of District Judge and filed before this court. The application is resisted by the respondent and it is contended that the advice given by the first counsel of the appellants was not a bona fide one and the applicants could not take advantage of the same.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.