SUDIP AGARWAL Vs. SASANKA SEKHAR HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Affidavit of service filed in Court today indicates that an attempt to serve upon the respondent No. 1, being the writ petitioner, was unsuccessful since the postal authorities have returned the envelope containing notice along with the application for condonation of delay and the application for stay with the remark, "no such person live in this address. Hence insufficient address. Return to sender", as stated in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit.

(2.) The record of the First Court, however, reveals that the writ petitioner had provided the same address in the cause title of the writ petition. The appellants, while sending the notice along with the application for condonation of delay and the application for stay, used that very address. The postal authorities having returned the envelope with remark, "insufficient address", simply means that at the time of moving of the writ petition, the petitioner did not provide his complete address. The writ petitioner, in such circumstances, has been deemed to have been served at the address as provided in the cause title of the writ petition. In re: CAN 3516 of 2017

(3.) After considering the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellants and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing the appeal and as such, the delay is condoned.