KADMI MANDALAIN Vs. NOMITA PANJARIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants -petitioners in this interlocutory application pray for condonation of delay in filing the CMP No. 270 of 2004.

(2.) IT has been stated that the Second Appeal No. 204 of 1987 (P) was filed in Patna High Court and it was transferred to this Court. The said second appeal was listed under the heading 'for orders ' on 3.09.2003 and one week 'stime was granted for taking fresh steps for service of notice on substituted heirs of deceased respondent No. 2. Appellants -petitioners were not aware about the transfer of the second appeal and they could not engage a counsel to attend the case at Ranchi. Subsequently, the appellants -petitioners, on search, could trace out the case and by that time the peremptory time had expired and the second appeal was dismissed. The appellants -petitioners then filed CMP No. 270 of 2004 as soon as they came to know about the dismissal. The delay is not at all intentional.

(3.) CONSIDERING the statements made in the interlocutory application as well as submissions made by the learned counsel, I am of the view that the appellants -petitioners have explained sufficient reasons for not filing the application within time under the circumstances beyond the control of the appellants -petitioners. In that view this interlocutory application is allowed. Delay in filing the CMP No. 270 of 2004 is condoned.