MANOHARAN Vs. POULOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. F. A. No. 850 was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 3307 days. M. F. A. No. 511 of 2000 was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 3320 days. M. F. A. No. 43 of 2000 was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 3211 days. In M. F. A. No. 511 of 2000 counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent opposing the petition for condonation of delay. Same is the stand of the second respondent in the other two cases also.

(2.) BEFORE examining the question as to whether petitions to condone the delay in all these appeals are to be allowed or not, we may examine the facts in these cases which has some bearing with regard to the exercise of discretion by this Court in condoning the delay.

(3.) SRI. K K. Chandran Pillai appeared for the appellant in all these cases. SRI. P. Gopalakrishna Menon appeared for first respondent in M. F. A. No. 511 of 2000. Government Pleader SRI. Lai George appeared for state Insurance Department.