(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the contents of application which is filed for condonation of delay. He submits that the appellant/applicant was suffering from jaundice. To that effect the appellant/ applicant examined herself before the Lower Appellate Court. The doctor who issued such certificate was also examined. The applicant was hospitalized and admitted for considerable period. She was advised for bed rest for about one year. The age of the applicant is 72 years. Therefore, relying upon contents of the application for condonation of delay and the evidence brought on record before the Lower Appellate Court, the Counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the delay in filing appeal ought to have been condoned by the Lower Appellate Court by adopting liberal approach.
(2.) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay. He submits that there is inordinate delay in filing the Regular Civil appeal. Said delay was not properly explained. The applicant was in hospital only for three months and therefore there was no reason to delay the filing of the appeal by 439 days. The Counsel invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Lower appellate Court and submitted that this appeal is devoid of merits and same may be dismissed. In the alternative, he submits that if this Court is inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay, in that case heavy costs may be imposed upon the appellant/applicant. He submits that the costs of Rs. 5,000/ may be imposed on the appellant/applicant.
(3.) I have given due consideration to the rival contentions, perused the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, also perused the impugned judgment & order and other documents placed on record. I am of the considered opinion that the Second Appeal raises following substantial questions of law for consideration :