RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. TRILOK WADHWANI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on IA No. 2876/2016, an application under Section 5 Read With Section 17 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. The appeal is drastically barred by 5046 days.

(2.) I have gone through the application for condonation of delay. The counsel for the appellant submitted that Award was passed on 21/02/2002 in Claim Case No. 122/1999. After passing impugned Award, the appellant was advised by his counsel for filing an appeal before the High Court for setting-aside the impugned Award. The appeal was required to be filed within 90 days from the date of Award but the same could not be filed because appellant had no knowledge of any Advocate at Gwalior and also could not come to Gwalior. In these circumstances, he requested the counsel who had appeared before the Claims Tribunal and also paid him Rs. 20,000/- for the counsel fee and expenditures. The counsel assured him that the appeal shall be filed in the High Court, Gwalior through his known Advocate. Appellant further submits that the Advocate had confirmed that the appeal has been filed. It is further contended that the appellant is unaware of the legal proceedings and as such, the appeal could not be filed within time.

(3.) On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed by filing a reply to the application for condonation of delay and has argued that there is no justification or satisfactory reasons disclosed on day to day basis explaining the delay on the part of the appellant. The appellant has not been able to show the sufficient cause for condoning the delay and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.