Bijoy Debbarma v. Kishore Debbarma
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA CRPNo.73of2013 ShriBijoyDebbarma,
!" #
%%%%Petitioner -Versus- ShriKishoreDebbarma,
& ! '(
)
* ! " #
............Respondent BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA ' $ :+
, & ' :+
& :01.04.2015 -
" $ : YES NO √ JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) .
+
, $ / +
$$ [2] # $
001
30 3406
&+ 673406 # $$ 8 093406
-
8 1" #
/
347 $
$$
[3] #
$ $ & $ $ $ /
/ $ 4:
344;< = 0 > & & , 344444?@ <, $ / (> & ( $
$
$ $ =
&
$
# $ $ $
# /
4;
4:
#
4;
4:
3400
#
8 703447 & -
& " #
8 0 / &
$ $$
& -
&" #
8 0$
AB, 06
& -
& " #
8 0 &
$ $
AB, 06
$ /
[4] $$
:5
-
" #
4;
4:
3400
#
8 703447 & -
& " #
8 # $$ / $
$$ &+ 67 3406 / $$ A
$$ / $$ /
-
" #
8 1 /
$
3406 347 &C "Since the petitioner filed application under Or.IX r.13 CPC before the Court below thinking that his relief was there in making an application under that section and as ultimately the learned Court belowheldthatreliefofthepetitionerwastherein preferring the appeal, there is no doubt that the period spent i.e. 190 days in pursuing the applicationunderOr.IXr.13CPCshallbeexcluded asperSection14oftheLimitationAct.Hence,the prayer for condonation of 208 days delay in preferring the appeal. It cannot be disputed that Courts are general liberal in dealing with condonationpetition.Firstappealisavitalstageof the suit for any party. In that view of the matter and considering the reason why the delay was occasionedasstatedindetailinthepetition,inmy opinion for ends of justice the prayer needs to be allowed." [5] +
, $ & =$ $ &
&
$$
/
/ + & $
A $ $ /
2 $$ =$
/ =$ $
$ [6] '
+
$
2 $$ / $
$$
/ $$ /&& $$ #
$$ / $$
[7]
$
& $$ $ $$
A $$ & -
& " #
8 0
$$
AB, 06
/
/ $
$$
/ / $
# $$
$$ $ $$ $ & 09 * [8] .&
/ &
& / $
./ &
$ /
$$
( &
$ $$ =$
/ *, / JUDGE