MASILAMANI NAICKER Vs. PANCHALAI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T. Arulraj, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There is no representation for the respondent even today. Under this revision petition, an order passed in C.M.P.No.749 of 2003 in ASSR.No.18349 of 2003 is under challenge. The said petition was filed under Order 41 Rule 3 (A) of CPC r/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2226 days in preferring the appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on a decision reported in Radha Krishna Rai-vs-Allahabad Bank and others(2000(9) Supreme Court Cases,733) would contend that if the delay in preferring an appeal had occurred only due to the fault of the counsel concerned, the delay can be condoned. THE facts of the said case are that the appellant had preferred an appeal after the delay of 1418 days. THE reasoning stated in the affidavit to the petition was only due to the misrepresentation made by the counsel for the appellant, he was under the impression that the appeal had already been filed and when he lastly contacted his counsel about the progress of the case, he had not received any satisfactory information. THEn he engaged another advocate and through him, he came to know that the appeal was not filed in time by the previous counsel. THE exact observations made by the Honourable Apex Court are as follows: