Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
Katerina Georghi Paourou and others v. Andriani Panayi Kaspi (1970) JSC 859 KI-generiert

Court dismisses appeal extension application requiring initial submission to lower court under Order 35 rule 19.

Geschäftsnummer Katerina Georghi Paourou and others v. Andriani Panayi Kaspi (1970) JSC 859
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Zypern (CY)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicants' application to extend the time for appealing to the Court of Appeal. The procedural rule mandates that such applications must first be made to the District Court or the Judge below. The court ruled that the applicants failed to follow this mandatory sequence, rendering their direct application to the appellate level invalid.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Order 35, rule 19; Applications for extension of time to appeal must be made in the first instance to the Court or Judge below.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
extension of time appeal procedure Order 35 rule 19 first instance requirement dismissed with costs verspätetes Fristerstreckungsgesuch Verhandlungsverschiebung Einhaltung der Fristen

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Order 35, rule 19
- Application for extension of time within which to appeal - Should be made in the first instance to the Court or Judge below - Civil Procedure Rules Order 35, rule 19.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
Cropper v. Smith, 24 Ch. D. 305
A useful English case on the practice under a corresponding rule, which throws light on the history and application of our present rule, is Cropper v. Smith, 24 Ch. D. 305.
Erini Costa Hji Michael v. Maria Karamichael and others (1967) 5 J.S.C. p. 572
But we think it might be useful to the parties (and to the Court of first instance, if eventually called upon to deal with the matter) to refer to Erini Costa Hji Michael v. Maria Karamichael and others (1967) 5 J.S.C. p. 572; and to Andreas Loizou v.
Andreas Loizou v. Panayiotis Konteatis (1968) 8 J.S.C. p. 891
572; and to Andreas Loizou v. Panayiotis Konteatis (1968) 8 J.S.C. p. 891 .
Niki Georghiou v. The Republic (1968) 11 J.S.C., 1212
Costas Kyriacou v. Yiannoula Georghiadou, (1970) 5 J.S.C.446
(1968) 11 J.S.C., 1212; and more recently in Costas Kyriacou v. Yiannoula Georghiadou, (1970) 5 J.S.C.446, which, however, is not precisely on the same point.
KI-generiert
Αρ. Αγωγής: 75/11
Cypriot court dismisses late appeal extension request due to lack of good faith and insufficient justification.
CY-AAD-meros_1-1970-rep-1970_1_0194
Court dismisses appeal extension application requiring initial filing with lower court under Order 35 rule 19.
Ποινική Αίτηση Αρ.: 8/24
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal extension request due to lack of valid reason for two-month delay.
Υπόθεση Αρ. 1169/2003
Appeal against non-appealable dismissal of jurisdictional objection is rejected as not decisive of rights.
Αρ. 55/2009
Supreme Court dismisses appeal extension request due to unjustified delay and lack of merit.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

[*859] 1970 June 18

(VASSILIADES, P., TRIANTAFYLLIDES,

JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Katerina Georghi Paourou & others,

Applicants-Plaintiffs,

v.

Andriani Panayi Kaspi,

Respondent-Defendant.

(Civil Application No. 8/70).

Civil Procedure - Practice - Appeal

- Application for extension of time within which to appeal - Should be made in the first instance to the Court or Judge below - Civil Procedure Rules Order 35, rule 19.

C. Colokassides, for the Applicants-Plaintiffs.

S. Marathovouniotis, for the Respondent-Defendant.

JUDGMENT

The following judgment was delivered by:

VASSILIADES. P.: We find it unnecessary to call on Mr. Marathovouniotis. We take the view that this [*860] application should be disposed of under rule 19 of Order 35 The rule reads:-

"Whenever under these rules an application may be made either to the Court below or to the Court of Appeal, or to a Judge of either Court, it shall be made in the first instance to the Court or Judge below".

This application for extension of time should have been made, we think, in the first instance to the District Court. A useful English case on the practice under a corresponding rule, which throws light on the history and application of our present rule, is Cropper v. Smith, 24 Ch. D. 305.

We do not wish to prejudice the issue in case of a proceeding before the District Court; and we prefer to avoid entering into the merits of the application. But we think it might be useful to the parties (and to the Court of first instance, if eventually called upon to deal with the matter) to refer to Erini Costa Hji Michael v. Maria Karamichael and others (1967) 5 J.S.C. p. 572; and to Andreas Loizou v. Panayiotis Konteatis (1968) 8 J.S.C. p. 891 .

The guiding principles in such matters have also been considered in Niki Georghiou v. The Republic

(1968) 11 J.S.C., 1212; and more recently in Costas Kyriacou v. Yiannoula Georghiadou, (1970) 5 J.S.C.446, which, however, is not precisely on the same point. That was a case where the appellant failed to comply with rule 22

of Order 35 within the prescribed period, his appeal [*861] stood dismissed and he applied for reinstatement. The application

was dismissed with costs.

We think that this application must also fail and be dismissed with costs although under a different rule as already stated.

Application dismissed with costs.