ORDER NO. 5 DT. 17.10.2012

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 is out of time by about 10 months and 20 days.

          The main contention of the Appellants/Petitioners, in brief, is that the Appellant, Sri Chiranjib Ghosh, who is also a Director of M/s. Sascon Complex, has been suffering from serious ailments from 18.6.11 to 16.2.12, due to which it was not possible on the part of the Appellants to collect the certified copy of the impugned judgement and that at the time disposal of the case before the Ld. District Forum neither the Appellants/Petitioners nor their Advocate on record, who was also suffering from various ailments, were present.  It is the further case of the Appellants/Petitioners that even after collection of certified copy of the impugned judgement on 16.02.2012 the Appellant/Petitioner once again fell ill and was compelled to take rest as per medical advice till 20.04.2012.  There was no intentional laches or negligence on the part of the Appellants/Petitioners in preferring the Appeal, which is out of time by about 10 months and 20 days and according to the Complainant, the application for condonation of delay should be leniently considered and the same may kindly be allowed so as to enable the Petitioners to contest the case properly.

          Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has seriously challenged the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellants/Petitioners.  According to the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents, when admittedly there are other Appellants on record and in the absence of cogent and reliable explanation as to what prevented the other Appellants to take proper steps in the matter of preferring the present Appeal, question of taking lenient view does not arise at all.  The Appellants simply in order to harass the Complainants/Respondents have preferred the present Appeal after such an abnormal delay and that in the absence of any cogent and reliable explanation the application for condonation of delay should be dismissed.

Case laws relied upon by the Appellants/Petitioners :-

          (1998) 7 SCC 123 – N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy

          We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of both sides and find that in this case the Appellants/Petitioner has come forward with a case to the effect that as the said Appellant was seriously ill, he was prevented from taking appropriate steps in the matter of filing the present Appeal, which has been filed out of time by 10 months and 20 days.  It is the specific case of the Appellants that the Appellants/Petitioners are well armed with a medical certificate in this regard and that as per the decision cited on behalf of the Appellants/Petitioners the application for condonation of delay should be leniently construed and that rejection of an application for condonation of delay should not be detrimental to the interests of justice and equity.  We have also considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellants/Petitioners and have also gone through the materials on record including the cited decision and find that the Appellants/Petitioners have tried to put forward a case to the effect that the Appellants/Petitioners were prevented by a sufficient cause namely serious illness of the Appellants/Petitioners within the prescribed time-limit.  According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, in such a case the application should be liberally construed in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been observed that the rejection of an application for condonation of a delay should not be detrimental to the interests of justice and equity.  In the present case, we find that there is substance in the submissions so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents, according to whom, there is no cogent and reliable explanation as to what prevented the other Appellants to take appropriate steps in this regard and on this score alone the application for condonation of delay is not at all sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. 

          Having considered the present matter in the light of above discussions we find no merit in the present application for condonation of delay, which, in our opinion, should be dismissed.  In the result, the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost.  Consequently the Appeal also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.