Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Judgment
MC 3736/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. TALAPTRA Heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant. It appears from the record that fresh steps were taken on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by registered post with AD on 30.09.2011. From the Registry’s note dated 26.09.2012, it appears that neither the AD Cards nor the unserved notices as issued on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been rece ived by the Registry as yet. In view of this, service on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be deemed to have been c ompleted in view of the provision of Order V Rule 9(5) of CPC. Accordingly, serv ice on all the respondents is complete. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2010 as passed in MAC Case No.94/2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribuna l, Goalpara. Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant has sub mitted that the causes of delay have been assigned in paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of th is application. Those causes constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Apart that, none of the respondents has come forward to contest this petition. As such, the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, th
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.