UMA HANDICRAFTS Vs. SHYAM SUNDER AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Tyagi submits that the reply to the application has been filed on 16.3.2012. Mr. Sharma admits that he has been supplied with the copy of the reply. Mr. Singh submits that Vakalatnama has been filed today and reply has already been filed on 25.4.2012. Though reply has been filed by respondent No. 2 with delay, yet the delay is condoned and the reply is taken on record.

(2.) HEARD parties' Counsel on application "(LA. No. 782/2011) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal

(3.) MR . Sharma, however, fails to disclose the exact date of filing of the writ petition before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Section 14, as enumerated above, provides for exclusion of time of proceeding with due diligence in good faith in a wrong forum bona fide. Even excluding the period consumed before the High Court, the appeal has been filed much beyond the period of limitation period of 45 days provided under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act. The contention of Mr. Sharma that the appellant resides in a remote village does not appear to be tenable as even the writ petition was filed after more than 7/8 months of passing the impugned order, as the registration number of the writ petition (08161/2010) suggests. The affidavit of the Court clerk of the Counsel who was pursuing the writ petition has not been filed in support of the contention of alleged misplacing of the copy of order of the Hon'ble Court.