Santu vs Mithai Lal Advocate - Lakhan Lal Chaudhari — 36/2025
Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 07th April 2026.
Misc. Civil Appeal
CNR: UPCH010027422025
Filing Number
144/2025
Filing Date
13-Nov-2025
Registration No
36/2025
Registration Date
13-Nov-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
07-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 06-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Santu
Adv. Satya Haran Yadav
Respondent(s)
-
1.Mithai Lal Advocate - Lakhan Lal Chaudhari
-
2.Raju
Adv. Lakhan Lal Chaudhari
-
3.Babalu
Adv. Lakhan Lal Chaudhari
-
4.Puniya alias Chhota
Adv. Lakhan Lal Chaudhari
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Apr-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary The District Judge of Chitrakoot rejected the appellant Santu's application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 for filing a late appeal against a 2016 judgment granting permanent injunction. The court found that Santu's claims of absence due to COVID-19 lockdown and previous counsel negligence did not constitute "sufficient cause," as he was actively present during original suit proceedings but deliberately failed to file a written statement, leading to an ex-parte judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Apr-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
27-Jan-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
19-Dec-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
09-Dec-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 36/2025
Summary The District Judge of Chitrakoot rejected the appellant Santu's application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 for filing a late appeal against a 2016 judgment granting permanent injunction. The court found that Santu's claims of absence due to COVID-19 lockdown and previous counsel negligence did not constitute "sufficient cause," as he was actively present during original suit proceedings but deliberately failed to file a written statement, leading to an ex-parte judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts