SARDA TRANSPORT, ADILABAD Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal. Delay caused is of 370 days.

(2.) Heard Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is original defendant. The original plaintiff is non applicant No. 1 United India Insurance Company Ltd., a subsidiary of General Insurance Company of India, having its divisional office at Old Cotton Market, Rajasthan Press Building, Akola and non applicant No. 2 is plaintiff no. 2 M/s Omprakash Shivprakash, through its partner Prakash Kaluram Agrawal. A suit for recovery was filed against the present applicant. The suit was contested by the present applicant on various grounds. After examining the witnesses by the plaintiff, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit for recovery against the present applicant. By the said decree, the learned trial Court ordered that the plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 4,05,915/- along with interest at 10% p.a. from 19.08.1996 till the filing of the suit. The future interest at the rate of 6% per annum was also granted in favour of the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit till its full realization. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the present applicant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 116/2012 and the learned Principal District Judge, Akola on 207.2016 dismissed the appeal with costs.

(3.) To challenge the said judgment and decree, it was expected from the applicant to file an appeal within the stipulated period. However, the appeal was not filed within the stipulated period therefore at the time of presentation of the appeal, an application for condonation of delay is filed. According to the application and submission of Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, after the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court on 22.07.2016, the present applicant contacted his counsel who appeared in the regular civil appeal and he informed the applicant that now nothing is required to be done. Believing his advice, the applicant has not taken any steps. It is also stated in the application and also it is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that on 09.11.2017, the bailiff had come to the office of the applicant for attachment and thereafter the present second appeal is filed.