ANIL KUMAR PANDEY Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -the Complaint was decided by the learned Forum, Nainital on 4.10.2001. The appeal has been filed on 23.3.2004 after about 2 years 5 months, whereas the appeal should be filed within a month.

(2.) From the copy of the original order, it appears that the judgment was ex parte. The appellant Sh. Amit Kumar Pandey was not personally served. He was presumed to have been served. In the condonation application, the appellant has alleged that in the interest of justice and equity the delay in filing appeal may kindly be condemned. Really the applicant is not entitled to any condonation but is entitled to be condemned as prayed.

(3.) However even if we proceed to see the grounds for condonation, in the affidavit it is alleged that the complainant filed execution before the learned Forum. In para 4 of the affidavit, it is alleged that as soon as the appellant knew about the execution proceedings, he filed restoration application before the District Forum. Restoration application appears to have been filed on 15.10.2003. It appears that by this the appellant wants to say that nearby 15.10.2003, he knew about the orders. Firstly this allegation is not correct and secondly even if it is correct then also appeal should have filed by 15.11.2003 but still about 4 months have been availed by the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant was advised by his Advocate that the only remedy available is restoration application, therefore, he filed the restoration application immediately. Then certain pleas regarding execution application have been taken. Again in Para 10 it is said that now the appellant's Counsel has advised him to file the appeal, therefore, he has filed this appeal. Now does not mean on what date when each day's delay is to be explained. It is alleged that delay in filing the appeal is due to lack of legal knowledge.