HEMENDRA NATH SHARMA Vs. DILIP KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. Hai, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

(2.) THE instant second appeal has been filed alongwith an application being Misc. Case No. 1272 of 2010 praying for condonation of delay of 56 days in preferring the second appeal. THE ground of sufficient cause as explained for extension of time beyond the prescribed period of limitation rests on two counts, viz., a) A talk of compromise was going on between the parties to settle the matter outside the Court, and b) THE applicant No. 1, who is dealing with the case, is 69 years of age and suffering from cancer.

(3.) HOWEVER, the matter came up for consideration on 04.04.2011 before the Court wherein the counsel appearing for the applicant Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 have submitted their respective affidavits, save and except the applicant Nos. 2, 6 and 10 and applicant No. 4 being on election duty prayed for some more time to file their respective affidavits. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the opposite parties has brought to the notice of the Court that the affidavits filed are not in consonance with the order passed on 15.03.2011 Moreover, another question has been raised relating to paragraph 1 of the miscellaneous application by the counsel representing the opposite parties, wherein it has been averred that the applicants are all cultivators by profession, whereas, it has been submitted before the Court that the affidavit by applicant No. 4 could not be filed, he being on election duty, meaning thereby that the applicant No. 4 is not a cultivator. This Court, therefore, further directed that the controversy raised is required to be clarified by the applicant No.4 annexing the proof of his profession along with the affidavit.