NAYANJYOTI KALITA Vs. MARAMI KALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the applicant.

(2.) Though the learned counsel for the applicant seeks further time to secure instructions, as depicted in order dated 21.12.2018, apart from the fact that such instructions have not been obtained despite lapse of sufficient time, what also arises for consideration herein at the outset is the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 331 in filing the accompanying appeal. Notice of the application was ordered to the respondent and the Office Note dated 19.12.2018 indicates that the service was effected on the father of the respondent. Since no other order has been passed by this Court, the notice is accepted to have been served on the respondent. In that background, the application is taken up for consideration.

(3.) The fact that the appellant had not diligently participated in the proceedings in F.C. (Crl.) No.693/13 is evident on record and even as per averments as contained in the application seeking for condonation of delay. In that circumstance, when the Court has passed the order dated 10.07.2014, though ex-parte, the applicant had knowledge of the same since, as indicated in the application seeking condonation of delay, the applicant has engaged the service of an advocate and secured a copy of the same. However, the explanation as put forth in the application is that since the applicant is a teacher, he was engaged in conducting examination and, therefore, could not diligently prosecute the matter. It is stated that after examination at the first instance was over, he was, thereafter, again involved in conducting the half-yearly examination in a school as per academic calendar.