BHANDARI DAS Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed beyond limitation of 1292 days. I do not consider it proper to issue notice of the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for such inordinate delay.

(2.) AN affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay reveals that learned Counsel Shri Kuldeep Sharma assured to the appellant to inform him whenever it is required. It is also alleged that Shri Kuldeep Sharma learned Counsel informed him that he is not responsible for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act but such compensation is to be paid by the Insurance Company. Learned Counsel Shri Kuldeep Sharma also assured the appellant that he is not required to contact him on each and every date. It is pertinent to note that in support of aforesaid averments no affidavit of Shri Kuldeep Sharma is filed.

(3.) THE averments made in the affidavit to the effect that neither their counsel informed nor any letter sent about the progress of the case to the appellant, is not believable. This Court takes judicial notice of this fact that in the trial courts, the general practice is that all time the clients used to appear in the courts and when the cases are called on for hearing, they used to inform their counsel.