State Of U.P. And Another vs Duber
2014 Latest Caselaw 7776 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 2410 1992
 
In
 

 
Case :- SECOND APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 97 of 1992
 

 
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Respondent :- Duber
 
Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Mishra,C.S.C.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

As per office report there is 42 days delay in filing the present appeal.

The appellant has filed a delay condonation application supported with an affidavit in for delay in filing the appeal.

Service of notice is deem sufficient. 

Cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is sufficient. The delay is condoned.

Order Date :- 29.10.2014

SKS

Case :- SECOND APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 97 of 1992

Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another

Respondent :- Duber

Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Mishra,C.S.C.

Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. The delay in filing this appeal having been condoned vide order of date passed on Delay Condonation Application, let the appeal be registered with regular number and the old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two number.

2. Learned standing counsel appeared for defendant-appellants. As requested by the standing counsel for the appellants, I proceed to hear the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC today itself.

3. This is defendant-appellants second appeal under section 100 CPC having lost from both the courts below inasmuch as defendants' Original Suit No. 540 of 1986 was dismissed by Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.1988 and the said judgment has been confirmed in appeal by lower Appellate Court dismissing defendants Civil Appeal No.198 of 1988 vide judgment dated 25.11.1991.

4. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts which could not be shown perverse in any manner. It is not the case of the appellants that any relevant piece of evidence was ignored or any impermissible or irrelevant evidence was taken into account or there is any other perversity, legal or otherwise, in the judgments impugned in this second appeal. I, therefore, do not find that any substantial question of law has arisen in this Second Appeal warranting consideration by this Court.

5. Dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.10.2014

SKS