Appeal reinstatement dismissed due to insufficient reasons and significant delay under Civil Procedure Rules.
Cipro (CY)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe court refused an application to reinstate a previously dismissed appeal for want of prosecution. The appellant argued the delay resulted from a clerical error, but the court found the reasons insufficient given the months-long gap. Consequently, the application was denied based on the court's discretionary power under the relevant Civil Procedure Rules.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAOrder 35, rules 22 and 6; Reinstatement of a dismissed appeal is discretionary and requires sufficient reasons, which are lacking where the delay is substantial and unexplained by compelling circumstances.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IAGiurisprudenza citata
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
[*827] 1969 June 6
(VASSILIADES, P., TRIANTAFYLLIDES, JOSEPHIDES, JJ.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Georghios Stylianou,
Appellant-Plaintiff,
v.
Yiannis Nicola and Another,
Respondents-Defendants.
(Application in Civil Appeal No.4774).
Civil Procedure - Practice - Appeal - Dismissed for want of prosecution
- Application to reinstate - Court1s discretion - Reasons in support of application insufficient - Refused - Civil Procedure Rules Order 35, rules 6,
21 and 22.
Appeal - Civil Appeal Application for reinstatement - See under “Civil Procedure”
Practice - See under "Civil Procedure".
E. Vrahimi, (Mrs.) for the Appellant.
No appearance for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
The following Judgment was delivered by-
VASSILIADES. P.: This is an application under rule 22 of Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the reinstatement of an appeal which stands dismissed under the same rule, for want of prosecution. Counsel for the appellant described the position as resulting from an unfortunate mistake of her clerk to bring to counsel's notice in due course, the position. As observed in the course of the argument, the delay here is a matter of months. [*828]
We have had occasion to state the views of this Court regarding the reopening of proceedings which have been finalized by operation of rules or parallel statutory provisions. (See Areti pavlou v. George Cacoyiannis (1963) 2, C.L.R., 405; Loizeou v. Konteatis
(1968) 8, J.S.C., 891; Georghiou v, The Republic (1968) 11 J.S.C., 1212; The Attorney- General v. HjiConstanti (1968) 8, J.S.C., 885).
We have no doubt in our minds, looking at the material before, us, in the light of what has been stated in the cases referred to, that the reasons put forward, in support of this application cannot be considered as sufficient reasons for reinstating the appeal in the exercise of; our discretion under the rule. The application must, therefore, be refused.
Application refused.