Allahabad High Court
Hari Kishun And Another vs Smt. Sawli And Others on 3 August, 2011
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Yogesh Chandra Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 590 of 2011
Petitioner :- Hari Kishun And Another
Respondent :- Smt. Sawli And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- N.K. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Yogesh Chandra Gupta,J.
Civil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 119848 of 2011
The present appeal has been filed against the Award dated 2.9.2009. As per the report of the Stamp Reporter dated 15.4.2011, the appeal was in time up to 13.12.2009, and thus , the same was beyond time by 1 year 123 days on the date of reporting. The appeal was presented on 18.4.2011.
Along with the appeal, the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application was filed.
By the order dated 20.4.2011, notices were directed to be issued on the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application.
As per the office report dated 19.7.2011, notices issued to the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 were served on the said respondents.
By the order dated 20.7.2011, the office was directed to submit report as to whether any learned counsel had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents pursuant to service of notices on the respondents.
The office has submit its report dated 2.8.2011 that no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
In the circumstances, we are proceeding to consider the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application and pass appropriate order thereon.
The aforementioned Delay Condonation Application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Hari Kishun stated to be the appellant no.1 in the appeal.
Reasons for the delay in filing the appeal have been explained in paragraph nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the said affidavit. The said paragraphs of the affidavit are reproduced below:
"2.That the deponent Hari Kishun was ill on account of old age from 15th August, 2009, so he could know the result of decision of Tribunal.
3. That after one month he reached to his counsel for the knowledge of the decision of the Tribunal. The learned Trial Court's counsel could not met him as he was out of station.
4. That after passing of some time he again try to meet his counsel for taking the copy of the decision of the tribunal and paid Rs.200/- for the copy of the judgment of the tribunal.
5. That after fifteen days he again met his counsel but the counsel could not supply the copy of the decision but the counsel suggested that you do not care for the same. The High Court counsel are coming Banda on each Saturday and he shall arrange for the appeal and suggested that you pay Rs.2000/- for appeal. The appellants had paid the same.
6. That after payment for the appeal the appellant has believed his counsel. In this way time has passed. One day the Collection Amin came and demanded the money and told him that the Motor Accident Tribunal has ordered that you should pay Rs.1,17,000/- then he again reached to his counsel who told him that High Court counsel has not filed appeal. Now you can take papers and can go to Hon'ble High Court. Thus he got the knowledge of the order on 4.3.2011 and paid to Amin Rs. 25000/-.
7. That the appellants contacted one another counsel of District Hamirpur, namely Matitosh Kumar Nigam, Advocate, at Hamirpur who contacted another counsel N.K. Trivedi, Advocate. The draft of Rs.25000/- was prepared in the name of Registrar General on 28.3.2011.
8. That thereafter case prepared and drafted to file before this Hon'ble Court. Thus the delay has been caused misleading of the trial court's counsel. So he could not file the appeal in time."
As noted above, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice on the respondents. Therefore, the averments made in the afore-mentioned Delay Condonation Application and its accompanying affidavit remain uncontroverted.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated herein-before and having considered the averments made in the above-quoted paragraphs of the affidavit accompanying the aforementioned Delay Condonation Application, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the appeal. The aforementioned Delay Condonation Application, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Let appropriate regular number be given tot he appeal.
List this appeal for admission after three weeks.
Order Date :- 3.8.2011
NS
