NOOR DIN Vs. JALAL-UL-DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed Civil Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dtd. 20/10/2012 passed by learned District Judge, Kishtwar. The appeal is accompanied with the application for condonation of delay which is of 30 days. The respondent stands served and is represented by the counsel. The objections to the application have also been filed. It is submitted in the application that the appellants consulted their counsel at Jammu who advised the appellants to make available a certified copy of the judgment and decree sheet of the court of Sub-Judge, Kishtwar. The appellants applied for the copy on 4/1/2013 and received the same on 22/1/2013 as the court was closed up to 20th January. The appellant-Noor Din who contacted the counsel at Jammu fell ill and remained confined to bed for two weeks and was not in a position to travel thereafter also. One of the appellants Noor Din was following the proceedings before the court below and contacted the counsel at Jammu and because of the above facts there was delay in the filing the application.

(2.) The respondent in his objections has denied the factual averments contained in the application. It is submitted that there is no medical evidence supporting the illness of the appellant-Noor Din nor is it written as to when the appellant came to Jammu and consulted his advocate. No sufficient cause shown in the application for allowing the same and that the appellants were negligent in filing the appeal within time. Even if one of the appellants namely Noor Din was unable to file the appeal within time because of illness the other appellant could have filed the appeal. The application and the objections are also supported by the affidavits.

(3.) The learned counsels for the parties have argued more or less as per their respective pleadings. Mr. V. R. Wazir learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that the facts mentioned in the application make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Moreover the appellants have raised substantial questions of law which should be decided on merits.