9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against the decision of the Collector dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Requirement of filing a copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal. 3. Argument for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. Interpretation of Order 41, Rule 1 of the CPC. 5. Consideration of extension of time for filing a copy of the decree under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal was directed against the decision of the Collector, Udhampur, dismissing the appellant's appeal against the judgment decreeing the respondent's suit for ejectment. The Collector dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to file a copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal within the prescribed period. 2. The appellant argued that the appeal was admitted without a copy of the decree and should not have been dismissed on this ground. However, the court held that Order 41, Rule 1 of the CPC mandates that the memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed against. Failure to do so renders the appeal defective and incompetent. 3. The appellant further contended for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court considered previous rulings and emphasized that sufficient reasons for exercising discretion under Section 5 must be established. The court found that the appellant's counsel did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the copy of the decree, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 4. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision and held that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 1 of the CPC are imperative, requiring the copy of the decree to be filed with the memorandum of appeal. The court also highlighted that failure to comply with this rule renders the appeal incomplete and invalid. 5. Regarding the extension of time for filing the copy of the decree under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the court emphasized the need for cogent reasons to exercise discretion in favor of the appellant. In this case, the court found that the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements and providing valid reasons for seeking extensions or condonations under the law.
|
