| FA No: 466 Of 2011 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/05/2011 in Case No. 132/2010 of District Kolkata-I) |
| | | | 1. M/s Gainwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. | | Represented by Managing Director, Mr. Manoj Kumar Saraf, Gainwell Manor, 11B, Dr. Rajendra Road, P.S. Bhowanipur, Kolkata - 700 020. | | 2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Saraf, Managing Director, M/S Gainwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. | | Gainwell Manor, 11B, Dr. Rajendra Road, P.S. Bhowanipur, Kolkata - 700 020. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | | Versus | | 1. Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal. | | S/o Sri Hari Prasad Agarwal, 28B, Rowland Road, Flat No.35, 7th Floor, Kolkata - 700 020. | | 2. Smt. Sushila Devi Agarwal | | W/o Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, 28B, Rowland Road, Flat No.35, 7th Floor, Kolkata - 700 020. | | 3. Sri Mandip Singh, Employee of M/S Gainwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. | | Gainwell Manor, 11B, Dr. Rajendra Road, P.S. Bhowanipur, Kolkata - 700 020. | | 4. Ms. Sima Ahmed, employee of M/S Gainwell Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. | | Gainwell Manor, 11B, Dr. Rajendra Road, P.S. Bhowanipur, Kolkata - 700 020. | | 5. Mrs. Mandira Kapoor, Club M Holidays. | | 21/1A, Shyamananda Road, (Opposite Beltala Girls' School), Bhowanipore, Mobile no- 9830861458. | | Kolkata- 700025. | | West Bengal. |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | ORDER NO. 14 DT. 24.12.2012 MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The record is placed today for passing necessary orders in respect of a petition for condonation of delay in preferring the present Appeal, which has been filed out of time by 249 days. The main contention of the Appellants/Petitioners, in brief, is that on 3rd September, 2011 the Appellants/Petitioners received a written information about the impugned judgement dt. 20.5.11. Thereafter, according to the Appellants/Petitioners, much time was consumed in the matter of contacting different advocates and also due to intervening Puja vacation. It is the further case of the Appellants that some time was consumed in the matter of collecting relevant and connected documents in support of the Appellants’ case. According to the Appellant, for no fault on the part of the Appellants the delay has been caused and unfortunately the impugned judgement was passed ex parte and that there is no intentional laches or lacuna on the part of the Appellants for the aforesaid delay, which may kindly be condoned. The Respondents while opposing the contention of the petition for condonation of delay has submitted a written objection contending inter alia that the delay has not been properly explained by the Appellants. In spite of written intimation of the impugned judgement the Appellants have unnecessarily caused abnormal delay with the sole intention to harass the Respondents and have put forward some false and concocted case in support the petition for condonation of delay, which should be dismissed. We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of both sides and on scrutiny of the materials on record we find that in spite of service of notice upon the Appellants/Ops the Ops did not care to appear and contest the case before the Ld. District Forum, which ultimately was disposed of ex parte. Now, on perusal of the petition for condonation of delay we find that the delay of about 249 days has not been properly explained by the Appellants/Ops. In this regard, we find much substance in the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Respondent, inasmuch as, the Appellants have intentionally caused abnormal delay in preferring the present Appeal which has been filed out of time by 249 days. Having considered the present matter in the light of above discussions we find no merit in the petition for condonation of delay, which is liable to be dismissed. Hence, ordered that the petition for condonation of delay stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation. | |
