JAGADAMBA Vs. D. GOVINDASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISC . Cvl. 23116/2010 and Misc. Cvl. 23117/2010 are filed by the counsel for petitioner, for condoning the delay of about 889 days in filing the recalling application and for recalling the order dated 10th June 2008 respectively. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) THE delay of 889 days in filing the recalling application, for recalling the order dated 10th June 2008 is explained from paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Misc. Cvl. application. In the said affidavit, it is stated that, on 10 -06 -2008, when the counsel of the petitioner was proceeding to attend the case, due to heavy traffic block, she could not reach the Court in time. Therefore, when the case was called on 10 -06 -2008, there was no representation on his behalf and accordingly, it was dismissed for non prosecution. There is a delay in filing the petition and the same is for the reason that the petitioner is aged about 60 years and she has been under medical treatment of Dr. Mahalekshmi from 12 -04 -2008 for Acute Arthritis in both her legs and she is producing the relevant documents before this Court for kind perusal and consideration and more over there is no one to take care of her and her husband as he is also ailing. Further, it is stated that there is absolutely no deliberate default or latches in proceeding in the case and therefore, if the review petition is not restored to file, she will be put to severe hardship, injury and loss and sought to condone the delay, in the interest of justice.

(3.) FURTHER , it can be seen that the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, without taking permission from the concerned Officer, has tampered the Office papers, by putting the whitener in the fourth line of the Misc. Civil Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and correcting the number of days of delay as 889 days, without her signature. This is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, Misc. Cvl. 23116/2010 is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and accordingly, it is dismissed. In view of dismissal of Misc. Cvl. 23116/2010 for condonation of delay, Misc. Cvl. 23117/2010 filed for recalling the order does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed.