NARESH KUMAR Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. Nos.35478/2016 (restoration), 35479/2016 (condonation of delay) & RSA No.328/2014

(2.) After a pass over the appellant appears in person and states that a judgment be passed on merits.

(3.) So far as the application for condonation of delay is concerned, it is seen that there is no sufficient reason given for condonation of delay of 552 days in filing of the application for restoration because it is not believable that appellant would not have contacted his counsel right from 11.2.2015 till March, 2016 when he received the notice of the execution proceedings. Merely filing a complaint to the Bar Council of India will not absolve the appellant of not furnishing the requisite explanation for delay and which is a large delay of 552 days. Accordingly, the applications for restoration and condonation of delay are liable to be dismissed because there are no sufficient reasons for condonation of delay and restoration. However, even on merits I have heard the counsel for the appellant.