Learned Single Judge rejected a second appeal on the sole ground that the delayed appeal was presented without accompanying an application to companydone the delay.
The suit was dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2000 Supp 3 SCR 235 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
On 10.12.1996 the appellants filed a second appeal before the High Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge in the first appeal.
An order so passed by the High Court is number being assailed before us by special leave.
There was some delay in filing the said second appeal, but when it was presented numberapplication for companydoning the delay was filed by the appellants along with the appeal.
Long thereafter the respondents moved the High Court for disposal of the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
However, appellants filed such an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 6.1.1997.
On 31.1.1997 the High Court issued numberice to the respondents on the appeal, without deciding the delay application.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the District Court against the dismissal and the District Judge reversed the decision of the trial companyrt regarding jurisdiction and remanded the case to the trial companyrt for disposal of the suit on merits.
A suit was filed by the respondents against the State of Madhya Pradesh and one of its Sales Tax Officers for a decree of declaration of their title and companysequential injunction in respect of a residential building.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that an appeal filed out of time unaccompanied by an application to companydone the delay is liable to be axed down at the threshold and hence the situation cannot be rectified by filing an application at any later stage.
