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 · 271 wordsD.P.S. Chauhan, J.—Heard Sri V. P. Goel counsel for Applicant.
On 7-1-92 an application for granting one month''s time to file a copy of the judgment was made. As per office report the copy of judgment has not been filed. But Under Rule 2 of Chapter XVIII of the Rules of the Court filing a certified copy of the judgment against which the revision had been preferred, is a necessary document and as such a prayer was made for granting
time to file the copy of the judgment, but the said copy of judgment is not filed till today. Today learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that tinder Rule 5, second proviso, Chapter XVIII of the Rules of the Court, the Court has power for dispensation of filing of the copy of judgment. The second proviso of Rule 5 Chapter XVIII is extracted below:-
Provided that the Court may for sufficient cause shown dispense with any such copy.
The Rule requires that there must be an application containing a prayer for dispensation of filing of certified copy and not only that there must be sufficient cause, which entitles the Court to exercise its jurisdiction. Today, before me there is no application and no sufficient cause is shown, so to enable me to come to the conclusion that there exists sufficient cause for dispensation of filing of a certified copy of the judgment. An oral prayer made by the learned Counsel for Applicant for dispensation of certified copy, cannot be accepted. He prays for and is allowed three week for taking proper steps in this regard.
List thereafter.