RAFIQ AHMAD WANI Vs. GHULAM MOHAMMAD DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of this application the applicant seeks the indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay of 363 days in filing the Civil 1 st Appeal (C1A), against the decree/judgement dated 21st of April, 2012, passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in a Suit bearing File No. 23/Civil, titled Ghulam Mohammad Dar versus Rafiq Ahmad Wani, on the grounds, inter alia, that the applicant Appellant (respondent in the Suit), in the wake of the judgement passed in the Suit, engaged a lawyer for filing an appeal in the Hon'ble High Court, who did not institute the appeal in time, which resulted in undue delay. It is further stated that the delay caused in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional as the applicant Appellant had, well in time, entrusted the case to the advocate to enable him to file the appeal against the decree of the Court below but for the reasons known to him, he did not institute the appeal well within the statutory period. The applicant Appellant has further stated that the counsel, on one or the other pretext, mislead him till such time that he came to know that the appeal has not been filed. The applicant Appellant has further stated that there are substantial grounds to maintain the appeal and if the application for condonation of delay is not allowed, he will be deprived of the right to defend his case. Finally the applicant Appellant has prayed that the application for condonation of delay be allowed so that the appeal against the decree of the Court below is instituted.

(2.) Xxx xxx xxx

(3.) Objections to the maintainability of the application for condonation of delay, have been filed by the respondent. It has been stated that the only reason given by applicant Appellant for the delay caused in filing the appeal is that he had entrusted the job to the advocate and had provided him the certified copy of the judgement/decree passed by the Court below, which had to be appealed against. It is stated that the decree has been passed on 21-04-2012 whereas the appeal has been preferred in the month of August, 2014. The respondent has further stated that there is a huge delay of more than two years in filing the appeal. It is further stated that it is no where reflected in the application for condonation of delay as to when did the applicant appellant obtain the copy of the decree/judgement and who was the counsel, whom the job of filing of the appeal was assigned. It is also not reflected anywhere in the application as to what were the reasons that made the applicant appellant to wait for such a long time. The respondent has stated that the settled position of law is that each and every day of delay is to be explained by the applicant/s seeking condonation of delay. The respondent has further stated that the applicant appellant has not made any mention in the application as to on which date he came to know that the appeal has not been filed by his counsel and what further steps he took to do the needful. The respondent has stated further that the application being vague merits dismissal.