TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September 24, 1993 while the appeal was filed on April 5, 1994. In the application it is stated that Mr. Pradeep Dewan, Advocate who conducted the matter before the learned Single Judge informed the Executive Engineer of the appellant that the objections to the award had been dismissed and consequently the award was made a rule of the Court. It is further averred that the said Advocate had informed the Executive Engineer that a certified cop) of the judgment had been applied for by him and the same would be sent to the department as soon as it was made available. It is claimed that the Executive Engineer sent a note to the Superintending Engineer informing him of the judgment. The Executive Engineer recorded his comments in the file on Nov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alwan, Advocate for drafting the appeal. It is claimed that the appeal was filed on April 4,1994 as according to the appellant the Court was closed from March 26,1994 to April 3,1994 on account of vacation. This is the Explanation which has been submitted by the Dda for the delay in filing the appeal. (2) To say the least, the Explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. It is not stated as to when Mr. Dewan, Advocate of the appellant for the first time applied for certified copies of the judgment and decree sheet. It is also not stated that on which date the ExecutiveEngineer,DDAsentanotetotheSuperintendingEngineerinforminghim of the said judgment. But note was recorded on November 15, 1993, while the judgment was delivered on September 24, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. It is claimed by the appellant that the Registry was closed from March 26,1994 to April 3,1994. We find that the Registry was open on April 2,1994. If that is the case, then filing the appeal on April 5,1994 will not give any advantage to the appellant of the intervening vacation. Therefore, the entire period from March 26, 1994 to April 4, 1994 will be counted for the purpose of limitation. (3) In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained by the appellant. It appears that the appellant has been grossly negligent in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. (4) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay should be condoned as it occurred on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
