A P KAPUR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The application seeking for condonation of delay is contested by the respondents, who have filed their reply raising objection to the prayer regarding condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties on the said application. It is stated by the appellant in his application that the writ petition was disposed of on 23. 02. 2005. Admittedly, certified copy of the judgment was received by the counsel for the appellant on 17. 03. 2005. A statement is made in the application that the aforesaid copy was not sent to the appellant by the counsel and accordingly the appellant was under the bonafide belief that the writ petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge. He has also stated that he was not able to contact Mrs. S. T. Siddiqui who was an old lady and was keeping indifferent health and that in the intervening period she had gone to abroad live with her son. Further stand taken in the application by the appellant is that the appellant came to India only in the last week of October, 2005 and tried to enquire about his case, when he was told that the writ petition has been dismissed by order dated 23. 02. 2005. He was given a copy of order on 12. 11. 2005, but still did not receive the case file from the counsel and, therefore, the appeal could be filed only on 8. 12. 2005.

(3.) HOWEVER, the respondents have stated in the reply as against the aforesaid statement made by the appellant in his application that Mrs. Siddiqui was seen in the court premises. It is also alleged that there are no particulars furnished to indicate as to when the counsel had left India and as to when she had returned back. All other statements made in the application are stated to be speculative in nature and to be very vague.