NAZIR AHMAD KUMAR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-appellant has filed this application seeking the indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay of 681 days in filing the Appeal, against the judgement dated 17-09-2015 of this Court, passed in SWP 2207/2013, inter alia, on the grounds that the delay was caused because of the fact that he was suffering from acute disc problem and was under strict instructions not to travel long distances. The applicant appellant states further that he hails from a remote area of the district Bandipora, which is 80 KMs away from Srinagar. It is further pleaded in the application that the applicant was in touch with his learned counsel, who all along assured him that the petition is being contested and, therefore, he had no reason to disbelieve his counsel. It is pleaded further in the application that on 11-09-2017, when the applicant-appellant came to know about the disposal of the writ petition in the year 2015, he was taken by complete surprise and immediately, without wasting anytime, approached the Registry for obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 17-09-2015 of this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant referred to the annexures to the application, i.e. OPD ticket, the X-Ray of the Spine of the applicant - appellant to substantiate the contention that the petitioner was suffering from acute back pain and was on complete rest on the strict advise of the medical practitioner. Learned counsel states that his (applicant's) ailing health caused the delay in filing of the appeal. Learned counsel submitted further that the applicant-appellant was all along vigilant and has never been indolent and because of the fact that his counsel showed utter carelessness in the matter in not informing his client (the applicant-appellant) in time, that the delay was caused. The counsel was not even present before the Court on the day the judgement dated 17-09-2015 was passed. The delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. Learned counsel, accordingly, prayed that the application for condonation of delay be allowed and the applicant-appellant be permitted to file the Letter's Patent Appeal.

(3.) Heard and considered.