USHA BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Applicant's counsel after taking me through the averments of the IA said that considering the age of the applicant i.e 75 years, being old woman and senior citizen, her physical position and the poverty, the alleged delay in filing the petition be condoned. In continuation he said that earlier she engaged some other counsel who did not appear in the matter to protect her interest consequently the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. With these submissions he prayed that considering the aforesaid cause as sufficient as per requirement of section 5 of the Limitation Act, by allowing the IA, the alleged delay be condoned.

(3.) The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the State counsel saying that in view of the various proceedings of the original writ petition according to which on various dates since 24.3.2000 til dismissal on 14.7.06, no one was appeared to prosecute this petition and considering such circumstance, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution so looking to such conduct of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition so also in the lack of sufficient explanation to condone the aforesaid long delay in filing this petition, mere on the aforesaid ground of illness, the old age and the financial scarcity of the applicant could not be treated to be the sufficient cause for condoning the alleged delay as per requirement of section 5 of the Limitation Act and prayed for dismissal of this IA along with the petition for restoration of the writ petition as barred by time.