SA/99/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 3051 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  SA No.99 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Present Mr. Abhishek Bahuguna, counsel for the applicant/appellant.

2. Present Mr. Siddharth Singh, counsel for the respondents.

Delay Condonation Application (IA/2/2022)

3. Delay Condonation Application has been moved by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, which is barred by limitation of 84 days.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant would submit that there is a delay of 84 days in filing the second appeal; that, the impugned judgment was passed on 07.12.2019 and the second appeal was filed on 14.08.2022; that, the appeal could not be filed within time because the applicant/appellant is poor, illiterate and suffering from alcohol addiction; that, the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, therefore, the same is liable to be condoned.

5. Counsel for the respondents would submit that the ground stated in the affidavit are not sufficient enough to condone the delay; that, the liquor cannot be a ground for condoning the delay otherwise there will be no sanctity to the Limitation Act. He would further submit that such type of frivolous submissions would make mockery of the law.

6. Heard and perused the grounds stated in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application.

7. There is an inordinate delay of 84 days in filing the present second appeal for which the appellant has not given any satisfactory and sufficient explanation.

8. It is trite that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay and explanation of each day's delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. In the present case, the reason stated by the applicant/appellant that he could not prefer the appeal within the limitation period because of alcohol addiction and domestic problems would not be said to be a sufficient and good ground. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is also at loss to state as to what exactly were the domestic problems which prevented the applicant/accused to approach this Court on time.

9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the delay condonation application. Same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the second appeal also stands dismissed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 10.10.2023 BS