PHILOMINA LOURDMARYKAR Vs. LATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellants counsel and the respondent's counsel on I.A. No.1 of 2015 for condoning the delay of 764 days in preferring this appeal. Application is accompanied by an affidavit of appellant No.1.

(2.) Appellant No.1 has stated in the affidavit that she was looking after the case in the trial Court as her son, who is appellant No.2, used to be out of Bengaluru most of the time in connection with his work. Her daughter decided to pursue remedy by filing a separate suit. Therefore, she alone was left with for taking further steps in the matter. She has stated that she was not keeping well, and she could not meet her counsel and obtain the copy of the order of dismissal of her application by the Executing Court. She was under great shock when she was informed that her application was dismissed without recording the evidence. Already, she was under depression as her Miscellaneous Petition had been dismissed. She has stated that she was under an impression that her daughter had preferred an appeal. Only when her daughter informed that she had not filed an appeal and that she had filed a separate suit, she decided to file this appeal.

(3.) Appellant No.1 filed an additional affidavit on 17-1-2017. In this additional affidavit, she has given details of correspondence made by her with Bengaluru City Corporation seeking allotment of the house which is subject matter of the suit and the execution petition, etc.