K. MOHAMED DAWOOD Vs. MAHAMED DAWOOD ROWTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.P. was listed in the cause list i.e., in the default list. Since the batta for the respondents 1, 3 and 5 have not been paid, the matter is pending from May, 1990 and in spite of the expiry of seven years, service could not be completed on the above respondents. I perused the affidavit to find out as to whether there is any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and as to whether the petitioner may be granted extension of time for the completion of the service on the above respondents. After perusal of the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, I find that inordinate delay of 465 days has not been properly explained by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he was having chronic attacks of hyper -tension and ulcer. He was not aware about the disposal of the First Appeal itself. He was suffering from peptic ulcer from 1.10.88 to 1.2.89 during which period, he was confined to bed. After his he met his counsel in the middle of February, 1989 when was informed about the disposal of the First Appeal. Thereafter, he requested his counsel to file the copy application. The copy application was filed or 21.2.89 and the copies were made ready on 8.3.89 and taken delivery on 14.3.89. While the petitioner came to Madras to make necessary arrangements for filing First Appeal ho was again attacked with hyper -tension and was laid up for six months and was confined to bed. He was under treatment from 20.3.89 to 25.9.89 Thereafter he came to Madras and filed the appeal. Even before making the arrangements to file the appeal, the petitioner had an attack of peptic ulcer and he had been undergoing the treatment at Madras from October 1989 to May 1990. Only in May 1990. the petitioner slightly recovered and thereafter met the counsel and filed the appeal.

(3.) The petitioner has filed three medical certificates, one is for the period from 1.1.1988 to 1.2.89 and another is for the period from 20.3.89 to 25.9.89 issued by Dr. A.N. Natharsha, the other one is dated 5.3.90 issued by Dr. H. Jilani, Madras. In this certificate it is stated that the petitioner was suffering from peptic ulcer from 11.10.89 to 5.3.90 and he was undergoing treatment. Likewise in the other two certificates issued by Dr. A.N. Natharsha it has been stated that the petitioner was under his care for peptic ulcer from 1.10.88 to 1.2.89 and for Hypertension from 20.3.89 to 25.9.89. A careful perusal of the medical certificate clearly reveals that at no point of time, the petitioner had been advised total bed rest. Only his statement is that he was bed ridden. From the medical certificate it is not clear as to whether the petitioner was suffering to the extent that he was not able to move about. Apart from this, admittedly, the petitioner had been in Madras from October, 1989, but the appeal has been filed only on 3.5.90. For the seven months though he was at Madras, there is nothing on record to show that he was unable to move about and meet the counsel. When the petitioner was able to meet the doctor between 11.10.89 to 5.3.90, he could have taken a slight diversion to meet the counsel also. It is not the case of the doctor or the petitioner that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient during the period from 11.10.89 to 5.3.90. Further for the period from 5.3.90 to 3.5.90 no explanation is forthcoming i.e., for nearly two months. In the absence of any explanation for the past two months and also taking into consideration of the above stated facts, I am of the opinion that the inordinate delay of 465 days has not been properly explained by the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.