ORDER NO. 8 DT. 03.05.2012

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

          The record is placed today for passing necessary orders in respect of an application for condonation of delay in preferring the present Appeal, which has been filed out of time by about 9 months.  The main contention of the application for condonation of delay, in brief, is that the impugned judgement was passed on 10.12.10 and the conducting advocate on behalf of the Appellant before the Ld. District Forum was under confusion as to whether an appeal should be filed against the impunged judgement or not.  Besides that, the Appellant was suffering from paucity of financial capacity and that she was also misled with the advice that she was to deposit 15% of the amount which has been ordered in the impugned judgement.  According to the Appellant, the delay of about 9 months had been caused, for which there is no intentional laches and/or negligence on the part of the Appellant.  Unless and until the delay is condoned, the Appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury and hence, the application for condonation of delay.

          The application for condonation of delay is being contested by the Respondent by filing a written objection thereby denying all the material averments made in the said application contending inter alia that the application for condonation of delay has been filed on all false and fictitious grounds.  The delay so caused being intentional, as it appears from the materials on record, question of allowing the same does not arise and accordingly, the Respondent has prayed for rejecting the said application for condonation of delay with cost.

          At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner that in this case initially the Appellant was wrongly advised by her advocate and subsequently she was asked to deposit 15% of the amount which was ordered in the impugned judgement and that as she was suffering from financial crisis, she was not able to take a firm decision whether to file the appeal or not and all these reasons have caused the delay for about 9 months in preferring the present appeal, which is totally intentional and for this intentional delay the Appellant should not be penalized and unless the application for condonation of delay is allowed, the very purpose of filing the present Appeal will be frustrated and that the Appellant will also suffer irreparable loss and injury.

          We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner and have also gone through the materials on record including the application for condonation of delay.  In this regard, we find much substance in the submissions so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, according to whom, it is incumbent upon the Appellant/petitioner to explain each and every day’s delay, but, unfortunately, in this case save and except putting forward some pleas and grounds the delay of about 9 months has not been properly explained by the Appellant/Petitioner.  If that be the position, we are unable to accept the proposition so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and are constrained to hold that the application for condonation of delay has got no merit in the eye of law and the same is liable to be dismissed. 

          Hence, it is ORDERED that the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost.  Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.