MRUGENDRASINGH AJITSINH GHATGE Vs. SICOM LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay of 3 years and 111 days in filing the aforesaid First Appeals can be disposed of by a common order, as they arise out of the same facts.

(2.) IN the First Appeals, the Applicant has impugned the Judgment and Orders dated 21st October, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge -4, Kolhapur, in separate Miscellaneous Civil Applications. The said applications were preferred by the respondent no.1 -SICOM Limited, under Section 31(1)(aa) r/w Section 32(1) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, for enforcement of the guarantors liability. The learned Judge held that the respondent no.1 was entitled to enforce the guarantee deed dated 31st March, 1992 and 16th June, 1992 signed by the applicant and consequently permitted the respondent no.1 -Company to enforce the liability as against the applicant. There is a delay of 3 years and 111 days in filing the said First Appeals and for which the applicant has filed the aforesaid Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay.

(3.) THE delay condonation applications were opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has filed a detailed affidavit of one Bharat D. Dhongade, the authorised representative of the respondent no.1 -company, refuting the grounds raised by the applicant. It was contended that the applicant had suppressed material facts and that no reasons were set out for condoning the gross and inordinate delay of 3 years and 111 days. He contended that the respondent no.1 had filed the Miscellaneous Applications under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, in the District Court at Kolhapur in the year 2001. He submitted that the applicant was duly served, pursuant to which the applicant put in his appearance in the said proceedings through his advocate. He thus contended that the Applicant and his Advocate were well aware of the proceedings right from the beginning, however they were negligent and reckless in not proceeding with the said case. He submitted that the medical certificates do not in any way indicate, that the applicant was hospitalized or was indisposed, resulting in his inability to proceed with the matter and contest the case on merits. He, therefore, submitted that considering the inordinate and unjustifiable delay in filing the appeal, the delay ought not to be condoned.