LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-85

BABU LAL Vs. KISHAN LAL

Decided On July 02, 2010
BABU LAL Appellant
V/S
KISHAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 23rd March, 2006.

(2.) Appellant has sought condonation of delay on the grounds that RCA No.21/05 was listed for hearing on 23rd March, 2006 when the judgment was passed by the court, that appellant was appearing in person as advocates were not appearing because of strike in Tis Hazari Courts, that he requested his counsel to apply for certified copy of the judgment and decree and also to draft appeal against the impugned judgment and decree, that he became busy due to board examination and competition preparation of his son and could not approach his lawyer from May 2006 till the end of vacation as his son was appearing in entrance examinations for professional colleges, that as told to him by the advocate, the file was damaged by termites, and he destroyed the same, that when appellant contacted his advocate on 3rd July, 2006 he came to know that there was delay in filing, that he collected the papers and applied for documents from judicial record on 7th July 2006, which he got on 14th July, 2006 and thereafter he filed the appeal, that there is a delay of 56 days which was caused by circumstances beyond his control.

(3.) Respondent had put in appearance through his counsel after receipt of notice. However, on 12th March 2008, none appeared on his behalf. Mr.Dharam Dev, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that delay in filing the appeal was due to bona fide reasons and sufficient cause as the file was damaged/destroyed by the termites and the appellant could not contact him. Appeal could be filed only after receiving certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court on 19th July, 2006 and after removal of objections and payment of court fee, he refiled the appeal on 8th August, 2006. He has prayed that under these circumstances, substantial question of law regarding limitation for filing the suit is involved in this appeal and since dispute is inter se the brothers, delay in filing the appeal deserves condonation.