NATHUBHAI NARAYANWALA Vs. LABOUR CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application is for condonation of delay of 1038 days in preferring application for restoration, which came to be dismissed as back as on 09.11.2009.

(2.) HEARD Learned Advocate Mr.R.M.Parmar appearing for the applicant. In order to see that the merits of the main matter may not be frustrated, I have also heard learned Advocate for the applicant on merits of the main matter.

(3.) IF the facts of the present case are further examined for the purpose of considering as to whether the applicant was prevented by sufficient reasons for not remaining present, or for not preferring the application at the relevant point of time within prescribed time limit, no explanation has been submitted. Under these Circumstances, I find that the discretion does not deserve to be exercised for condonation of such a long delay of 1038 days.