Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 1019 - SC - Indian Laws
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause to condone delay present or not - validity of ex-parte decree passed - right to appeal - regular appeal u/s 96 CPC - certified copies of the documents were misplaced by the office of the Advocate - "sufficient cause" used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay.
HELD THAT:- the Respondent was very much conscious of the fact that the appeal filed by him against order dated 20.2.2008 passed by the trial Court had been dismissed by the High Court on 11.12.2008 and he had obtained certified copies of the documents, which are said to have handed over to the counsel on 10.1.2009, he did not make any effort to contact the concerned advocate till the first week of March, 2010 to ascertain the fate of the appeal supposed to have been filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2006. Not only this, the application and affidavit filed by him are conspicuously silent about the name of the advocate to whom the papers were entrusted tor the purpose of preparing the grounds of appeal. The affidavit of the concerned advocate was also not filed. if there was any iota of truth in the Respondent's story that the certified copies of the documents were misplaced by the office of his counsel and the same were noticed by the counsel on 2.3.2010 while preparing arguments in A.S. No. 200/2001, the minimum which he was expected to do was to file an affidavit of the concerned advocate. Why he did not do so has not been explained by the Respondent. Notwithstanding this, the learned Single Judge assumed that the counsel to whom the Appellant is said to have handed over the documents was remiss in the performance of his duties and on that account, the same got tagged with another file resulting in the delay.
In the present case, the statement made by the Respondent about misplacement of the documents by the office of the Advocate was vague to the core and the learned Single Judge committed grave error by entertaining the fanciful explanation given for 1236 days delay. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the Respondent for condonation of 1236 days delay in filing appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court shall stand dismissed.
|