DHANPAL & OTHERS Vs. HANSRAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, whereby the appellant has implored to condone the delay of 1169 days. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that he could not mark the case on 12th December, 2005 when the case was listed for admission. He came to know about the fact of dismissal of appeal in default on 9th March, 2009 when he enquired to ascertain the status of the appeal. Soon thereafter he applied for certified copy on 23rd March, 2009 and thereafter filed the restoration application. Hence, the delay was genuine and bonafide and thus, the delay deserves to be condoned.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has opposed the application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has utterly failed to assign sufficient cause and give reasonable explanation in filing the restoration application after 1169 days of the expiry of period of limitation. Hence, on account of there being no sufficient cause and reasonable explanation, I do not find any reason to condone the delay of 1169 days and thus the application U/s. 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the restoration application does not survive and that also stands dismissed.