RAM GURUDAS CHANDRAMANI, S/O. SRI. GURUDASMAL G. CHANDRAMANI REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SRI. DINESH NATWARLAL MAKANI, S/O. NATWARLAL MAKANI Vs. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter is posted today for orders, for considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellant with regard to the objections raised by the office at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, he has filed an application for impleading himself as a party in Misc. petition 63/2000 and it was rejected. Against the said order, he has filed a Civil Revision petition No. 2747/2003 and during the pendency of the said revision petition, Misc. Petition 63/2000 was disposed of on 28.11.2003 as such, Appellant is not a party to the said Misc. petition. Further, he submitted that, 5th Respondent died on 8.4.2005 and therefore, filing the application for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased is not necessary, as they are already on record as Appellant and Respondent No. 5. The said explanation -cum -submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant to comply the office objections at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 is not satisfactory. It is not in dispute that, Appellant has filed an application for impleading himself in Misc. petition 63/2000 and the same was and against the said order, he has filed a Civil Revision Petition and the same has been disposed of as having become infructuous, on the ground that, Misc. petition has already disposed of. Therefore, the Appellant has the knowledge of the proceedings as early as on 28.11.2003. But this Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed on 25.1.2011 and there is an inordinate delay of 6 years 11 months, in filing the appeal and therefore, Appellant has filed Misc. No. 2138/2011 for condoning the said delay. The Appellant has not explained the said delay satisfactorily in the affidavit filed along with the application by assigning valid reasons, except narrating the history and facts of the case. The explanation offered by the Appellant for condonation of delay is omnibus in nature and that is not sufficient to condone the delay of nearly 6 years 11 months in filing the appeal. In view of non explaining the delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent and valid reasons, we are of the considered view that, the Misc. Cvl., filed for condonation of delay cannot be considered and it is liable to be rejected and consequently, the appeal is also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches and also as devoid of merits.

(3.) IN view of the dismissal of the appeal, the prayer sought in Misc. Cvl. 214G/2011 does not survive for consideration and hence, the said Misc. Cvl. is disposed of as having become infructuous.