AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 249 wordsRekha Borana, J
The present appeal pertains to the year 2015. At that point of time, a defect was pointed out by the office of the appeal being time barred by 372 days and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the said delay was filed. When the said defect was not removed for a long time, vide order dated 24.03.2017, three weeks’ time was granted for removal of the defect, failing which the appeal was directed to be dismissed without reference to the Court.
Despite the said per-emptory order, the defect was not removed and hence, the appeal stood dismissed. However, vide order dated 13.11.2017, the appeal was restored. The order dated 13.11.2017 reflects that in the restoration application, it was submitted that the defect as pointed out has now been removed. It is in the view of the said fact that the restoration application was allowed and the appeal was directed to be restored to its original number.
However, as is clear from the record, defect No.1 has not been removed till date.
Meaning thereby, firstly, the statement made in the restoration application was totally incorrect and secondly, despite the appeal having been restored in the year 2017, the defect has not been cured till today i.e. in the year 2024.
In view of the above facts, this Court does not find any ground to grant any further time for removal of the defect. The appeal is hence, dismissed.