MANEKLAL ATMARAMBHAI PATEL Vs. AJAY GOPALDAS KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed by the applicant, original defendant No. 1, for condonation of delay of 894 days in filing the revision application on the grounds set out in detail in the application, inter alia, that the applicant is old and was seriously ill, was hospitalised and therefore could not attend the court. It is also stated that the advocate who had appeared for him has also expired after illness and therefore there is delay in filing the revision application.

(2.) An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 raising an objection with regard to condonation of delay on the ground that the application is vague and the applicant has failed to explain the delay. Therefore, the applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. It is also contended that the learned advocate appeared in the lower appellate court and thereafter the learned advocate died due to sickness which is not relevant for considering the sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt referred to the papers and submitted that as the applicant himself is aged and was ill, he could not follow up his matter and thereafter the learned advocate who had appeared before the lower appellate court was also ill and expired. Therefore, due to communication gap there is delay in filing the revision application which may be condoned considering the provisions of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. He submitted that a liberal approach is required to be adopted while considering such application if sufficient cause is made out. He submitted that the illness and the age of the applicant is sufficient cause to exercise such discretion.