MANAGER, INDUSIND BANK LIMITED Vs. SANJAY GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 63 days. The Registry, however, has informed that the delay is of 67 days.

(2.) Argument on this application i.e. IA7451/2019 has been heard. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the delay had occurred due to administrative reasons. After receiving the impugned order, the matter was referred to higher officer for scrutiny and thereafter the matter was referred for legal opinion to the local counsel. The matter was received by the counsel at Delhi in the month of April, 2019. The counsel found that some of the documents were not legible and he demanded the fair copies which were given to him only in last week of April, 2019. On this ground it is prayed that the delay be condoned. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. It is a settled proposition of law that it is the duty of the applicant/petitioner who has come before the court, seeking condonation of delay to explain the delay of each and every day by giving sufficient cause for condonation of such delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Basavraj & Anr. V. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR(SCW) 6510" has explained the meaning of sufficient cause which is as under:

(3.) Hon'Ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, 1962 AIR(SC) 361 that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and it is mandatory on the part of the applicant to explain sufficient cause which prevented him from coming to the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. It is further held that where sufficient cause are not shown, the Courts are justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -