ASHA @ AYESHA Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned order dismisses appellant's application seeking revocation of grant of Letter of Administration granted vide order of 12th July, 2001. Appellant had filed application on 29th August, 2012 and while taking the period of limitation from the date of written statement i.e. 12th May, 2009, appellant's application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed by trial court by holding that the medical record relied upon to seek condonation of delay consists of clinical reports only and it does not show that appellant had accompanied her daughter-in-law for medical treatment.

(2.) The challenge to the impugned order by learned counsel for appellant is on the ground that the main stand of appellant of being ill advised by his previous counsel that there was no period of limitation, is not dealt with in the impugned order. It is submitted that even if the plea of illness of appellant's daughter-in-law is not taken into consideration, still, due to ill advice given to the appellant by previous counsel, the delay ought to have been condoned, as the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and appellant's application seeking condonation of delay ought to be allowed and appellant's application seeking revocation of the Letter of Administration granted vide order of 12th July, 2001 needs to be heard on merits.

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for second respondent submits that the impugned order is perfectly justified and there is no merit in this appeal, as the name of counsel, who had purportedly given ill advice, is not disclosed, nor affidavit of the previous counsel has been filed. It is pointed out that during the period of three years, appellant had filed many cases against second respondent and so, the plea of appellant being busy in attending to her ailing daughter-in-law is an afterthought and trial court has rightly negated it.