Misc. Case No. 26 of 2016:

This is an application for condonation of delay.

Office has pointed out that there was delay of 978 days in preferring this appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that the learned District Forum pronounced the final order/judgment to the counsel for the petitioner on 24/04/2013. On receipt of the sad copy the counsel handed over the same to the Chief Manager asked for preferring an appeal. On receipt of opinion from the conducting counsel , it was sent to the conrolling office of the Bank and after due examination of the same by the law officer, permission was given for filing an appeal before this Commission. The said Chief Manager was transferred and in his place another new one joined. It was learnt that the transferred Chief Manager has not handed over the file regarding filing of appeal to his successor. When notice in Execution Case No. 15/2016 was received there was through search for said file and after it was being traceout, this appeal has been filed. It is further submitted that for that reason there was delay in filing of this appeal.

Learned counsel for the Respondent/O.P. has raised objection that there is no valid reason on ground taken by the petitioner to condone the delay. the officers of the appellant Bank are highly educated and they are well aware of the rules and regulations and also the procedure of the Bank to tackle the litigation for and against the Bank. therefore this extraordinarily delay should not be condoned and the misc case should be dismissed.

There was delay of 978 days i.e. more than two and half years to prefer the appeal after the order was passed by learned District Forum. The LCR was called for and it is found from the remarks coloum of the order was received by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner on 24/04/2013. there after the dates when the opinion of the counsel for the appellant in the District Forum was received for preferring an appeal by the Chief Manager and when it was sent to the controlling office and when the law officer had given permission to file appeal have not been mentioned by the petitioner. Further the name of the Chief Manager who received the opinion and did not hand over the charge of the said file to his successor has not been mentioned in the petition nor it has been mentioned what action  was taken by the appellant against the said erring Chief Manager. It has also not been mentioned when notice of execution case was received by the appellant.

 On analysis of the aforesaid lacunas find that the reason for delay in preferring the appeal has not been sufficiently explained by the appellant. We therefore did not find sufficient ground to condone the extraordinary delay of more than two and half years in preferring the appeal. As such there is no ground to condone the delay.

Hence, the misc case stands dismissed. Consequently the First Appeal No.14 of 2016 stands dismissed.

LCR be returned to the District Forum  at the earliest.