RAM PAL Vs. BIRMO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A. K. Singh, learned Advocate in support of delay condonation application and Sri Amit, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent.

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court dated 7. 4. 2001. In view of report of the stamp reporter the appeal is barred by time by four years 273 days. Affidavit has been filed in support of the delay condonation application to which counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent and rejoinder affidavit is also there.

(3.) THE ground which has been taken for condonation of delay is that under wrong advise of the local Counsel appellant pursued a wrong remedy and after exhausting that remedy when he came to the present learned Counsel he was correctly advised to file appeal and thus this appeal has been filed. It is on these premises delay in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned. In support of the submission that pursuing a different remedy than appeal on wrong advise of a Counsel constitute substantial cause, reliance has been placed on the decision given by the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal v. Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749.