Heard learned counsel for the appellant on condonation of delaly, which is stated to be 893 days as per office note and according to the petitioner it is of 880 days.

The explanation given is that the appellant had entrusted the matter to the counsel in the month of June, 2007; that due to summer vacation, the clerk of the counsel had consigned the file in

-2-

the disposed of files; that after vacation counsel for the appellant had to shift his office; that the file pertaining to the case got tagged up with some other cases which were given burial in terms of the proceedings having attained finality; that the filing of appeal against the impugned order completely skipped the attention of the counsel for the appellant; that the explanation offered may not inspire confidence and may appear to a case of negligence; that the matter completely skipped from the mind of the counsel; that the clerk associated with the counsel was rebuked for being negligent and callus in keeping the record of the file.

The aforesaid explanation, in my opinion, is neither sufficient nor inspires confidence as rightly stated in the application itself. Besides this, it is  pertinent to note that the appellant did not make any enquiry whatsoever with his counsel as to what happened to filing of the appeal and about progress of the appeal. If the appellant was vigilant, the appeal could be filed, may be, with little or some delay in the matter. However, I find that even there is total inaction on the part of the appellant and he has not been vigilant in prosecuting his matter with his counsel. It is a case of gross

-3-

 negligence. The appeal has been filed only after the execution proceedings were initiated.   

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason or justification to condone the delay of 893/880 days in filing this appeal. The condonation application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed with no order as to costs.