MUKHTAR HASAN Vs. HORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay Condonation Application No. 3696 of 1982 is taken up for order. This is an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by two years and 240 days. The applicant/appellant is an agriculturist. The respondent has filed a suit for specific performance of contract to sell the land of the appellant measuring about 5.26 acres for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, out of which Rs. 4,000/- was paid in advance.

(2.) It appears, the appellant has taken loan from the Bank and the land was mortgaged with the Bank. The respondent's suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. It is stated in paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application that the applicant/deponent was advised by the counsel to contest the execution case. The counsel before the Court below has not advised to file second appeal against the judgment of the lower appellate Court. It appears, in turn, the applicant contacted another counsel Sri Zamirul Hasan, Advocate, who has advised the applicant/appellant to file second appeal, after going through the judgments of the Courts below. Thereafter, the applicant has approached this Court and filed the second appeal, which has become highly time barred.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent, in which it is stated that the grounds taken in the delay condonation application are self-engineered as the appellant had throughout been negligent. The appeal is grossly barred by time and, therefore, it should be dismissed as barred by time and the application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected.