RAMAN KUMAR Vs. BHUPENDER LAL KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Appellant/Defendant's (hereafter referred to as the Defendant) application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The material facts are that the suit of the Respondent-Plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff) for recovery of Rs. 65,000/- from the Defendant and Defendant-Respondent No. 2 (hereafter referred to as Defendant No. 2) was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Shimla vide judgment and decree dated 19.7.1994. In appeal, the learned District Judge, Shimla vide his judgment and decree dated 1.12.1998 partly allowed the appeal and passed a decree for Rs. 30,120.65 with proportionate costs and future interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant though the claim against Defendant No. 2 was dismissed. The Defendant has filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the District Judge which is time barred. Hence the application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal.

(2.) It is averred in the application that the son of the Plaintiff has been suffering from acute lymphoblastic levimia and has been regularly getting treatment at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh and it was due to the said serious ailment of his son that the Defendant could not contact his counsel at Shimla and since because of such illness, he remained out of his place of business, therefore, even his counsel could not contact him on telephone which resulted in delay in filing the appeal. With the application, some photo copies of the medical papers relating to the alleged ailment of the son of the Defendant have been annexed.

(3.) The application has been resisted for the Plaintiff on the ground that as per the treatment record of the son of the Defendant enclosed with the application, his son remained indoor patient in PGI, Chandigarh during the period 13.11.1997 to 29.11.1997 when he was discharged and thereafter he was examined in PGI, Chandigarh on 23.10.1998, 12.2.1999, 26.3.1999 and 7.5.1999 and thus, the admission period aforesaid and the dates of visit to and check up of his son at Chandigarh does not disclose any reasonable or satisfactory reason for delay in filing the appeal.