BHOLA MAHTO Vs. NIRPATH MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application the petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the C.M.P. No. 387 of 2004. It has been stated that the Advocate 'sClerk Incharge had undergone a surgical operation in the medical clinic of Dr. Mukti Saran and after discharge from the clinic he was advised complete bed rest and that he could not come to the Court from 5.8.2004 to 28.8.2004 and in the said circumstances he could not comply with the peremptory order dated 5.8.2004 by which the petitioner was directed to take steps for notice to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It has been stated that subsequently by information issued by the office of the Court the appellant came to know that the appeal was dismissed for non -compliance of the order and, thereafter, without any delay filed the said C.M.P. paying for restoration of the appeal.

(2.) MR . S.K. Murti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contesting the said petition stated inter alia that the appellant was negligent in complying with the order of this Court and the illness of the Advocate 'sClerk Incharge is a mere pretence for not complying with the order and not taking proper steps as directed by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the defendant opposite party has been put to unnecessary loss and harassment in defending the C.M.P./ as well as the instant Interlocutory Application.

(3.) IN view of the above I find that the petitioner has made out sufficient ground for condonation of delay. However, the delay in filing the C.M.P. has caused inconvenience and harassment to the opposite party. In that view the delay is condoned subject to payment of Rs. 1,000.00 (Rupees one thousand) to the opposite party or his counsel. The cost must be paid within three weeks. C.M. P. 387 of 2004