OMPAL ALIAS OM SAINI vs State of U.P. — 67/2026
Case under Limitation Act Section 5. Disposed: Uncontested--LOKADALAT on 09th May 2026.
CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: UPSP010006052026
Filing Number
539/2026
Filing Date
19-01-2026
Registration No
67/2026
Registration Date
19-01-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
09th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOKADALAT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
OMPAL ALIAS OM SAINI
Adv. MR JITENDRA MOHAN SAINI
Respondent(s)
State of U.P.
KIRAN
SHIV
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
hearing
hearing
hearing
hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-05-2026 | hearing |
| 20-04-2026 | hearing |
| 02-04-2026 | hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 67/2026 The National Lok Adalat (Civil Court at Sahaspur, Saharanpur) accepted a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 54-day delay in filing an appeal. Appellant Ompal (Om Saini) sought condonation, citing delayed receipt of certified copies from the lower court and subsequent court closures that caused approximately two months of delay. The District Government Advocate opposed the petition but ultimately consented to its acceptance on merits. The court granted condonation, applying established principles that practical justice should prevail over technical strictness when examining delay under Section 5. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 67/2026 The National Lok Adalat (Civil Court at Sahaspur, Saharanpur) accepted a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 54-day delay in filing an appeal. Appellant Ompal (Om Saini) sought condonation, citing delayed receipt of certified copies from the lower court and subsequent court closures that caused approximately two months of delay. The District Government Advocate opposed the petition but ultimately consented to its acceptance on merits. The court granted condonation, applying established principles that practical justice should prevail over technical strictness when examining delay under Section 5. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts