RATAN CHANDRA ARORA Vs. SURESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A twenty-eight years old Second Appeal was dismissed for default, is sought to be resurrected by this restoration applica tion, which is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.

(2.) THE dispute is between a tenant and landlord and the decree is for evic tion of the tenant who seeks the revival of the appeal.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid observations, the Counsel for the appli cant argued, that, since the Counsel for the applicant defaulted, he should not be penalised as has been mentioned by the Supreme Court. All cases, however, are not a like and have different features and characteristics. It is not appro priate to apply a single formula in a straight-jacket to all cases, irrespective of divergence in facts and circumstances. It will be noticed that in the present case, the appeal was dismissed on 12.5.2006. The application for restoration was made on 24.10.2008. This will show that the application for restoration was given 3 year and 5 months after dismissal of the appeal, and that clearly shows latches on the part of the applicant, because, he could have and should have found out, about his appeal much earlier. The university accepted axiom that 'Delay defeats Equity' should operate, and the applicant should be deemed disentitled to the relief claimed.