No. 6/23.03.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Pradip Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent No. 1 in person and Respondent No. 2 through Mr. P. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, Respondent No. 1 in person and Respondent No. 2 through Ld. Advocate.  We have considered the contention in support of the application for condonation of delay.  From the records it is apparent that the judgement impugned herein was delivered on 25.03.2008.  The objection filed by the Respondent No. 1 discloses on 04.04.2007, Respondent No. 1 intimated the Complainant by a letter dated 24.04.2008 about the judgement along with the copy of the judgement and the same was served by hand against receipt.  The Appellant has not disputed the said fact.  It appears on 25.11.2008 notice of the execution was served on the Appellant by hand and the Appellant appeared in the execution case before the Forum below on 22.12.2008.  Surprisingly the Appellant applied for certified copy of the impugned judgement only on 02.01.2009 and the present appeal was filed on 06.01.2009.  In the above admitted facts we are unable to accept that the Appellant acted with vigilance.  We find no explanation as to why the Appellant maintained silence not only after the judgement was delivered but even after 22.04.2008 when the copy of the judgement was supplied by the Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant.  Same is the conduct of the Appellant when he fails to react even upon service of the notice of the execution case on 25.11.2008.  Even when the Appellant appeared before the Executing Forum on 22.12.2008 no action was taken.  No explanation has been found as to why the Appellant waited till 02.01.2009 for even making the application for certified copy of the impugned judgment.  In such circumstances we are of the opinion Appellant’s actions were indicating laches and negligence and it did not care to take any appropriate step on any of the said dates when steps were expected to be taken by any vigilant party to a litigation.  The delay appears to be of 256 days and such long delay cannot be explained in the manner it has been done.  In the circumstances we do not condone the delay and the application for condonation is dismissed.  The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.