SA/26/2019
2023 Latest Caselaw 3069 UK

             Office Notes,
                reports,
               orders or
             proceedings
SL.
      Date   or directions                         COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                  and
              Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                             S.A. No. 26 of 2019
                             Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. Piyush Garg, counsel for the applicant. Mr. I.P. Kohli, Standing Counsel for the State. Ms. Jyoti Singh proxy counsel for Mr. Sudhir Kumar, counsel for respondent no. 3 to 5.

2. Present appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 05.09.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramnagar, District Nainital has been dismissed.

3. There is 67 days delay in filing the appeal.

4. The Delay Condonation Application (CLMA 3154 of 2019) has been filed along with the affidavit for condoning the delay of 67 days with the averments that the delay has been caused due to the reason that the appellant is a practicing Advocate and he kept the file in his chamber and misplaced the same and during the course of collecting the documents to reconstruct the said file, he found the same from another Advocate. It also stated that from 10.01.2019 onwards, the Court was closed due to the winter vacation.

3. State counsel vehemently opposed the delay condonation application and would submit that during the course of winter vacation, the Registry remains open, therefore, this reason for not filing the appeal within limitation is not sustainable.

4. The grounds taken in the affidavit would reveal that no satisfactory or reasonable explanation given in the Delay Condonation Application for condoning the delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgment has held that only if the reasons are genuine and acceptable, then alone, the delay is to be condoned and not otherwise. Law of limitation is substantive law. The condonation of delay cannot be a routine affair. A person, who is not vigilant, is not entitled for the relief after a prolonged period. It is well considered principle of law that while condoning the delay, the Courts have to consider the genuinity of the reasons furnished by the person seeking condonation of delay.

6. In view of the fact that the appellant/applicant could not establish any acceptable reason for the purpose of condoning the delay of 67 days, this Court is not inclined to consider the delay condonation application. The delay condonation application is hereby rejected.

7. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 11.10.2023 Mamta