MCD Vs. ANAND PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation, however, the same was returned with objections and the same was re-filed late.

(2.) It is submitted that the objections could not be removed within the time allowed by the Registry on account of some personal problem of the earlier counsel. It is also submitted that the file of this matter was received by present counsel on or around 29 30 January, 2009, when it was found that along with the appeal neither the pleadings nor evidence had been filed. Thereafter present counsel applied for certified copies of the pleadings and filed the same, resulting in delay of 350 days. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the delay was on account of bona fide reasons and on account of personal problem of the earlier counsel, who had been engaged in the matter. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the application reads as under:

(3.) The application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondent. Mr.Gupta, relies on volume 5 Rule 5 Chapter ,,1 of Part A of the High Court Rules and Orders in support of his plea that since the objections were not removed by the appellant within 30 days it would amount to refilling of the appeal. Counsel for respondent has relied upon Asha Sharma & Ors. Vs. Sanimiya Vanijiya P. Ltd. & Ors. 162 (2009) DLT 542 a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and more particularly paragraphs 8 and 9 thereto, which reads as under: