No. 4/12.01.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Shankar Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mr. Badhisatta Dutta, the Ld. Advocate are present.  We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner in support of the application for condonation of delay and Ld. Advocate opposing the application.  The Respondent has filed Written Objection to the condonation application.  Upon hearing we find on facts it is admitted that the O.Ps have complied with the order proposed to be impugned in the appeal.  In  terms of the Clause 1 of the ordering portion of the impugned judgement, the O.P. has delivered the vehicle to the Complainant and in terms of Clause 2 thereof the Complainant has paid the amount as per impugned order.  The O.P. also has deposited the cheque for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in terms of Clause 3 of the impugned order which the Complainant states that she has not accepted the same and it is lying in the Forum below deposited.  In the circumstances we are of the opinion that facts stated in the application for condonation of delay do not show any bonafide reason and it appears that the Complainant was allowing the O.P. to comply with the terms of the impugned order and thereafter to proceed with a review application and on dismissal thereof to prefer an appeal.  In the circumstances we are not satisfied that there was a genuine ground on which the delay has occurred.  Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and, therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.