1, A DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY OF THE COMPANY Vs. PRATIMA AWASTHI WIDOW OF LATE RAMESH KUMAR AWASTHI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA AWASTHI NIWAS, MANASPATH, P.S.-KHAJEKALA, DISTRICT-PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A. No. 2016 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in the filing of the review petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of this court dated 28.2.2007 passed in M.A. No. 443 of 2003 the instant review petition was filed on 24.4.2007, although according to the stamp report limitation had expired on 1.4.2007. Hence, for condoning the aforesaid delay of about thirteen days, specific explanation has been given in the aforeaid interlocutory application, which appears to be genuine and bona fide. In the said circumstances, I. A. No. 2016 of 2008 is allowed and delay in the filing of the review petition is condoned.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for claimant -respondent no. 1. This petition has been filed on behalf of the New India Assurance Company Limited for review of order of this court dated 28.2.2007 by which M.A. No. 443 of 2003 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has raised a point claiming that the said order dismissing appeal was a cryptic order and such orders have been deprecated by the Hon ble Apex Court in its decision in case of State of Punjab and Another vs. Navdeep Kaur and Others, reported in (2004)13 Supreme Court Cases 680.

(3.) IN the said circumstances and in the ends of justice and also in view of the fact that any delay in the matter is bound to affect the claimant adversely, both the parties have been heard today at length in support of their respective cases.