ORDER NO. 7 DT. 07.12.2012

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The record is placed today for passing necessary orders in respect of an application for condonation of delay preferred by the Appellant.

The main contention of the Appellant/Petitioner, in brief, is that in spite of no laches and/or lacuna on the part of the Appellant/Petitioner a delay of about 422 days has been caused in preferring the present Appeal.  According to the petitioner, the delay has been caused due to various factors namely lack of knowledge of the petitioner in respect of the proceeding in question, time taken to obtain certified copy of the order impugned, time taken for bonafide pursuit of the matter by adopting a faulty procedure, time consumed on the ground of the Ld. Advocate such as non-availability of the Ld. Advocate, time taken for holding conference with the advocates, time taken for preparation and settling of Memo of Appeal and other related and connected documents and that for all these factors the Appellant/Petitioner is not responsible and for these, the Appellant should not be held responsible.  The Appellant/Petitioner being a victim of circumstances the petition for condonation of delay may kindly be allowed.

Case laws referred on behalf of the Respondent :-

1.                 II (2012) CPJ 255 (NC)

2.                 2012 (2) WBLR (SC) 38

3.                 IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)

4.                 2012 (3) CPR 6 (NC)

5.                 I (2012) CPJ 217 (NC)

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner that from the materials on record it would be evident that initially due to ignorance of the actual legal proposition the Appellant/Petitioner attempted to set aside the ex parte order by which the petition of complaint was disposed of against the Appellant/Petitioner and that too without service of notice upon the Appellant/Petitioner.  As subsequently it turned out that the legal proposition does not permit such setting aside of ex parte order, the petitioner had to approach the Ld. Advocate for the purpose of filing the present Appeal against both the ex parte order and the order rejecting the prayer for setting aside the ex parte order.  According to the Ld. Advocate, in this regard, the situation was totally against the Appellant/Petitioner, inasmuch as, for want of proper legal assistance and that for non-availability of the advocate, as mentioned above, also has caused considerable amount of delay, for which the Appellant/Petitioner should not be penalized.  According to the Ld. Advocate, there are very good grounds for the success of the present Appeal, which may kindly be admitted after condoning the delay in preferring the present Appeal.

       We have duly considered submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and also different decisions relied on behalf of the Respondent and find that in this case the Appellant/Petitioner has put forward with a case to the effect that due to ignorance of law and/or time consumed in pursuing the matters from different aspects namely time taken for obtaining certified copy, non-availability of the Ld. Advocate on various grounds, time consumed for preparation and settling of Memo of Appeal and correction of various and related documents have consumed bulk period of time in preferring the Appeal, which is out of time by 422 days.  According to the Appellant, for this inordinate delay the Appellant/Petitioner is not responsible and there is absolutely no lacuna or laches on the part of the Appellant/Petitioner in this regard and for these circumstances the petition for condonation of delay may kindly be allowed. 

However, after considering various decisions relied upon by the Respondent we find that Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court have practically discouraged such activities on the part of the Appellant namely causing abnormal and inordinate delay in preferring the Appeal.   The principles laid down in the said decisions do not permit us to consider and allow the petition for condonation of delay, which, in our opinion, should be dismissed.   Having considered the present matter in the light of above discussions we find that there is absolutely no merit in the present petition for condonation of delay, which is liable to be dismissed.

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