Responding to the appeal of Article 185 (2) (d) and 185 (3) of the Supreme Court jurisdiction, the respondent objected to the leave of appeal on the ground that in this case, Article 185 (2) (d) Direct appeal under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution, instead of requesting leave for appeal, the custody had to be filed with the Supreme Court. The respondent also claimed that under Article 185 (2) (d) of the Constitution the appeal to the Supreme Court was forbidden. In filing an appeal or filing an appeal, in the first instance the amount or value of the subject matter of the dispute in court should not be less than Rs. 50,000 and on the judgment of this account, the order and order appealed by the court diversified. Was declared or placed immediately below the subject value. For the first time, the issue of dispute in the court had to be considered, not the original suit costing more than 50 50,000 and the order dismissing the claimant by the High Court was variable as an adjustment by the Division Bench of the High Court. When the dispute case, the sale agreement, and the first time the court claimed that the amount of damages had exceeded Rs 50,000, the High Court's decision was set aside, therefore, leave application for appeal, constitution. In view of Article 185 (2) (d) of the Constitution, only direct appeal was restricted under Article 185 (2) (d) of the competent court in appropriate cases. Was great and there were plenty of options to delay the use of discretion. The appropriate and reasonable cause within the parameters of the law in filing an appeal was shown to be delayed. The applicant had not filed any application so that
