D D A Vs. PANDIT CONSTRUCTION CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral)

(2.) THIS application for condonation of delay has been filed by DDA for condoning the delay of 421 days in filing the application under Order 9 rule 9 for setting aside the order of dismissal of appeal dated 5th December, 2001. Mr. Anil Sapra, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that appeal was filed on 10th August, 2001 when it was adjourned to await decision of learned Single Judge on claim no. 11. The matter was adjourned to 26th August, 2001 and thereafter the matter was further adjourned to 24th September, 2001. In the meanwhile, Counsel appearing for the DDA resigned and it was informed to Hon'ble Court on 24th September, 2001, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 5th December, 2001. Though the matter was entrusted to Shri Sushil Salwan Advocate on 13th November, 2001, but nobody appeared and the appeal was dismissed on 5th December, 2001. That the counsel did not take any note of the fact that the appeal was dismissed and on 26th August, 2002 that counsel who did not appear on 5th December, 2001, also resigned. However, it is the stand of the DDA that the file from the said counsel was received by the DDA on 9th September, 2002 after he resigned on 26th August, 2001. File was inspected on 14th November, 2002 and an application for condonation of delay was filed on 3rd March, 2003. Mr. Sapra has also cited to legitimate the delay on the part of appellant and its condonation relying on AIR 1996 S.C. 1623, State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others. It was observed in this matter as under:-