LAL KAUR Vs. SHIV CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In spite of the fact that respondent has been served for the last date and he appeared through counsel before the Registrar on 17.4.2014, yet, no reply has been filed and since there is no opposition to the application, this application for condonation of delay of 463 days is allowed. Application is also allowed because appellant is a poor widow lady of about 70 years and she states that she was a victim of misguidance by her earlier Advocate. Considering the facts of the present case which have been detailed in the main judgment below, I find that the present is a fit case for condonation of delay more so in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 AIR(SC) 3222 that there is some amount of negligence when condonation of delay is prayed for but that itself is not sufficient for dismissing the application for condonation of delay unless and until there is want of good faith on behalf of the applicant.

(2.) This Second Appeal is filed impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 5.7.2012 by which the first appellate court accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the trial court dated 27.4.2010 which had dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.2 lacs alongwith interest @ 24% per annum simple filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent at the outset on the first call stated that he wanted time to file reply to the application for condonation of delay as also the appeal, however considering the facts of the present case, adjournment was declined including for the reason that in an appeal no reply is required to be filed but the appeal is argued on the basis of the trial court record. After the matter was passed over, a new excuse is given that the counsel for the respondent is not well, and which reason was not given when the matter was passed over on the first call and therefore it is clear that adjournment is being prayed as a matter of strategy and a tactic to delay and defeat the rights of the appellant/defendant. I have therefore heard the counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record am proceeding to decide the appeal.