Kripa Ram v. Bansi Ram & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Mar 2008
- Bench
- SURJIT SINGH
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. However, from the record of the learned Magistrate, it is clear that no prayer was made for condonation of delay, either by filing a separate application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or incorporating the prayer in the memorandum of appeal itself. Since…
Judgment
The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, respondent No.1. Ms Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G., for respondent No.2. None for other respondents. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record.
On the complaint of respondent No.1 Bansi Ram, the Panchayat passed an order on 22.8.2000 against the present petitioner. That order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.10.2000. The Magistrate has dismissed the appeal, on the ground that the same is barred by time. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is that the Limitation Act is not applicable to the appeal filed against an order of the Panchayat. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is contrary to the provision of law. The learned Magistrate has placed reliance upon Section 60(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, to hold the aforesaid view. The said provision says that the Limitation Act is not applicable Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (cid:133)2(cid:133) to the proceedings before the Panchayat. The aforesaid provision does not say that the Act is not applicable, even when Panchayat(cid:146)s order is assailed, by filing an appeal.
Operative part
However, from the record of the learned Magistrate, it is clear that no prayer was made for condonation of delay, either by filing a separate application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or incorporating the prayer in the memorandum of appeal itself. Since the condonation of delay had not been sought and admittedly the appeal was barred by time, the present petition seeking the setting aside of the order of the learned Magistrate, dismissing the appeal, on account of being barred by time, is dismissed. Petition stands disposed of. March 7, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5; Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — s. 60(4).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 07 Mar 2008. The bench was SURJIT SINGH.
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.