GURPREET SINGH Vs. RAJIV SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the applicants/appellants.

(2.) BRIEF background which has given rise to the filing of the present application is narrated in nutshell hereinafter. Complaint No.262/2006 was decided by the District Forum, Shimla, on 1.9.2009 whereby the complaint was allowed and as per averments made in the application for condonation of delay the main ground taken by the applicants in the application was to the effect that the petitioner had suffered loss of 4 family members in accident during the last year and thereafter he could not overcome the shock and even could not attend many of the cases running against the Company in which the name of the applicant was figuring and it was only in the month of April that the applicant contacted the Counsel Shri Sandeep Suri, who conducted the case in the lower Court, then he came to know that the case had been decided on 1.9.2009 and thereafter the complainant contacted the Company/Bank who told that the responsibility of filing the appeal in these cases where the present or the former employees have been arrayed as a party was upon the official concerned and bank can only assist them for funds for filing of appeal. Thereafter he has immediately obtained copy of the order and got the amount sanctioned from the former employee and instructed the Counsel for filing the appeal in his own name and then immediately the appeal was filed though there is a delay of 213 days in filing the appeal but from the date of knowledge it is being filed immediately after it came to his knowledge and there is no delay in filing the present appeal which is not intentional but bonafide one and there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant to file the present appeal but delay has occurred due to the reasons which are beyond his control and as such prayer has been made for condoning the delay in the present case in the interest of justice and fair play.

(3.) IN the present case number of opportunities were given to the respondents for filing reply but despite giving last opportunity for filing the reply as per order dated 30.8.2011, no reply was filed on the next date of hearing on 28.9.2011 and even no one appeared on behalf of the respondents in the present case.