AMRIK SINGH Vs. N. K. SRIVASTAVA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 9281 -C of 2010

(2.) THIS is application by Appellant -Amrik Singh for condonation of delay of 1080 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that the applicant -Appellant had been attending the case before the Courts below, but he requested the Clerk of the counsel in the lower Courts to inform him as and when the case was decided because the applicant -Appellant was suffering from heart disease and might not be able to attend the Court proceedings, but Clerk of the counsel did not inform the applicant -Appellant. After waiting for long time, the applicant -Appellant contacted his counsel in the lower Courts and learnt of the decision dated 11.06.2007 of the lower appellate Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant -Appellant reiterated the stand taken by the applicant -Appellant in the application. However, on careful consideration thereof, I find no ground much less sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of almost three years in filing the appeal. Vague, general and specious averments that applicant Appellant was suffering from heart disease and could not attend the Court and Clerk of the counsel did not inform him about the decision of the first appeal cannot be said to be a ground to condone long delay almost three years. If such long delay is condoned on such vague, general and specious ground, then the law of limitation would be completely defeated. The very purpose of prescribing limitation period would be frustrated. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, even if taken at face value, I find no ground much less sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of almost three years for filing the instant second appeal. It may be added that even if the applicant -Appellant was unwell, he could have contacted his counsel telephonically. His family members also could contact the counsel or could attend the Court proceedings. The applicant Appellant could not have waited for more than three years since after the decision of the first appeal to contact his counsel to know the fate of the appeal. No document regarding alleged ailment of the applicant -Appellant has either been produced.