HARBANS SINGH NEGI Vs. SARVEKSHAN ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on delay condonation application as well as restoration application.

(2.) In the accompanying affidavit filed with delay condonation application it is stated that initially the appeal was filed before Allahabad High Court and subsequently it was transferred to this court. After transfer notices were issued to the appellants and the counsel for the appellants appeared in the case on 20-4-2009. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5-11-2009. It is further alleged in the affidavit that inadvertently the clerk of the counsel could not mark the case on the date fixed and it was dismissed in default. The appellant-deponent is an old and infirm person and residing at Chandigarh with his daughter and on account of his ill health could not contact the counsel and when he contacted his counsel on 19-9-2012 and enquired about the status of the case and inquiry was made at the enquiry counter of the High Court, it was communicated that the matter had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 5.11.2009.

(3.) Objection has been filed against the delay condonation application. In the above facts narrated in the affidavit, I find that the cause shown for the delay has been explained. The delay condonation application as well as the restoration application are allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number.