Sikkim High Court
Ongdi Sherpa vs Nim Temba Sherpa And Ors on 30 October, 2024
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
I.A. No.01 of 2024 in RSA/46/2024/(Filing No.)
ONGDI SHERPA APPLICANT
VERSUS
NIM TEMBA SHERPA AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
Date: 30.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
For Applicant Mr. Karma Thinlay, Senior Advocate.
For Respondent Mr. Yashir N. Tamang, Advocate.
Mr. Zamyang Norbu Bhutia, Advocate.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents
R-1 Ms. Gita Bista, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel).
R-2 to R-6 Ms. Gita Bista, Advocate.
ORDER
1. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2024, which is an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter, the "Limitation Act"),
seeking condonation of 65 days delay in filing the instant Appeal.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submits that the
period of limitation for filing the instant Appeal is ninety days. The
Order and Decree of the Learned First Appellate Court was pronounced
on 31-10-2023, while the application seeking certified copy was made
only on 08-01-2024, which was made available on 11-01-2024. That,
the Applicant is about 59 years of age and having suffered a stroke in
the year 2014 and has not fully recovered from the effects thereof and
was thereby unable to collect the Judgment or to take steps on time.
His son who is in the Indian Reserve Battalion was at the relevant time
posted in Delhi and was therefore unable to assist his father. That
apart, there were intervening Government Holidays and Court Vacation
on account of which steps could not be taken as the Counsel on record
was not in station for a majority of the month of January nor were
there other Advocates who the Applicant could consult for taking steps
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
against the impugned Judgment. Thereafter, the Learned Counsel on
record also travelled out of station from the beginning of February till
almost the end of February, on account of prior family commitment.
The Applicant thereafter in the month of March fell ill and was advised
bed rest for about two weeks. Hence, the delay occurred which has
thereby being sufficiently explained and may be condoned.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the
parameters prescribed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have not
been met by Learned Counsel for the Applicant and the grounds for
delay not having been sufficiently explained the Petition deserves a
dismissal.
4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions
advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the grounds
put forth as elucidated hereinabove, I am of the considered view that
the delay has been sufficiently explained and is accordingly condoned.
5. I.A. No.01 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Register the Appeal.
7. Call for the records from the Learned Courts below.
8. List on 04-12-2024.
Judge
30.10.2024
ds/sdl
