Order No. 5 Date: 08-05-2017
Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Record is put up today for passing order in respect of the delay condonation petition of the Appellants.
By such petition, it is stated by the Appellants that they received copy of the impugned order from the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent on 20-09-2016. Thereafter, they sent the case file to their Ld. Advocate stationed in New Delhi for drafting the Memo of Appeal and the same was received on 03-10-2016. After finalizing the said draft, the Appeal was ultimately filed on 20-10-2016. It is stated that there was no intentional laches on their part for the delayed filing of the Appeal and accordingly, they prayed for condoning the delay.
On going through the impugned order it appears that the Appellants contested the case before the Ld. District Forum. It goes to show that Appellants were well aware about the pronouncement of impugned order by the Ld. District Forum. Despite this, if they indeed had genuine grievance against such order, why they did not strike while the iron was hot is totally inexplicable.
It seems, the Appellants swung into action following receipt of copy of the impugned from the Respondent after more than four months. Such belated action on the part of the Appellants, under no circumstances, can be justified. No wonder, the Appellants have made no such endeavour to explain the rationality of sitting idle for so long.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ram Lal Vs. Rewa Coalfield, reported in AIR 1962 SC 351, held that while seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal.
The delay of 129 days in filing this Appeal (excluding the statutory period of limitation) being not explained showing ‘sufficient cause’ behind such huge delay in filing this Appeal, the petition cannot be allowed.
The delay condition petition of the Appellants is thus rejected. Consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
