KAMAL KURREY Vs. TRILOCHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, the applicants are seeking restoration of Second Appeal No.285/2003 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dtd. 14/2/2017 (Annexure A/1). This restoration application has been filed with a delay of 1094 days, hence an application (IA No.01/2022) for condoning the said delay has also been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that from the records of the said second appeal it appears that appellant Kanchan Bai died on 15/5/2013 and thereafter on 29/7/2013 an application for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased appellant was filed within time but as per direction of this Court, on 13/1/2017 suitable application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was filed. The matter was listed for hearing on the said application on 14/2/2017, however, there being no representation on behalf of the appellant, the second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits that from bare perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay it would be apparent that no sufficient and reasonable explanation is given by the applicants for condoning the inordinate delay of 1094 days in filing the application for restoration of the second appeal whereas they were required to explain day to day delay for filing the MCC. From the contents of the said application, it is evident that the applicants were well aware of pendency of the second appeal and therefore, after death of original defendant i.e. mother of the applicants, they moved an application for bringing LRs on record. Though the applicants have taken ground of medical problems but no such document has been filed by them. The applicants have sufficient means of livelihood, so the ground of starvation is also incorrect. Because of pendency of the appeal, the non-applicant is deprived of fruits of the decree and all this is nothing but delaying tactics of the applicants. It is well settled law that in civil matters, the parties are required to give each day's delay but in the present case, no such effort is made and very casual explanation has been offered by the applicants. Therefore, the present application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected and consequently, the MCC be dismissed as being hopelessly time barred.