TRISHALA Vs. M.V. SUNDAR RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the regular first appeal before the High Court. In this order we will refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the High Court.

(2.) BY the impugned order1 the High Court has condoned 861 days' delay in filing the regular first appeal and directed the appeal to be listed for hearing on the question of admission. Feeling aggrieved by such order, the respondent in the High Court has filed this petition seeking special leave to appeal.

(3.) BEFORE the High Court the respondent (i.e. the petitioner in this Court) was noticed on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. She appeared and filed reply. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal sets out the case in support of prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and is supported by an affidavit. When the application was taken up for hearing the respondent and her counsel were absent. The matter was passed over and heard on the second call whence also none was present for the respondent. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the appellants. It felt satisfied with the truthfulness of the averments made in the application, supported by affidavit. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent it is stated vide para 5 "the appellants are put to strict proof of the same" i.e. of all the averments made in support of the application. However, the respondent did not make a prayer for enquiry being held nor did she make a prayer for cross-examination on the affidavit filed by the appellant.