Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
Katerina Georghi Paourou and others v. Andriani Panayi Kaspi (1970) JSC 859 Generato dall'IA

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

Numero d'incarto Katerina Georghi Paourou and others v. Andriani Panayi Kaspi (1970) JSC 859
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Cipro (CY)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
extension of time appeal procedure Order 35 rule 19 first instance requirement dismissed with costs proroga tardiva del termine rinvio del dibattimento osservanza dei termini

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
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.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
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.
Generato dall'IA
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.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

[*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.