AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
16.02.2026 I.A. No. 792 of 2026 This is an Application praying for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.
Order impugned was passed on 31/10/2025 and this Appeal had been e-filed on 08/01/2026. In the Application filed for condonation of delay, Counsel for Appellant submitted that earlier Appellant has filed one combined Appeal against the order dated 07/09/2025 and 31/10/2025 which Appeal was filed on 10/11/2025 within 30 days. However, registry raised an objection that against two orders, single Appeal cannot be entertained which objection was raised on 05/12/2025.
Thereafter, Appellant was constrained to file two separate Appeals against the order dated 10/09/2025 and 31/10/2025 and the present Appeal have been filed against the order dated 31/10/2025. Ld. Counsel for Appellant relies on an order of this Tribunal in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No 911 of 2024 where an I.A. No 4921 of 2024, where the condonation of delay was allowed where in the similar circumstances, Appeal was filed within 30 days, but on account of objection of registry, a fresh Appeal was filed.
This Tribunal took the view that since the Appeal initially against the order impugned was filed within 30 days, the subsequent filing on the basis of objection of the registry cannot be treated to be filing beyond 30 days.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent refuting the submissions submit that Appellant ought to have refiled the Appeal after removing objections whereas he had filed a separate Appeal, its relations with earlier Appeal had snapped and he cannot take benefit of earlier filing.
We have considered submissions of the Parties and perused the record. It is on record that the earlier Appeal filed by the Appellant on 10/11/2025 was also against the order dated 31/10/2025 but on account of objection raised on 05/12/2025 by registry, two separate Appeals were filed. Present Appeal having been filed against the order dated 31/10/2025.
The Appellant having already filed the Appeal within 30 days, we are of the view that Application for condonation of delay needs to be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the present case and that Appeal has to be held to be filed within time.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 217 of 2026 Ld. Counsel for Respondent raised a preliminary objection on Appeal. He submitted that again the Appellant by earlier order dated 10/09/2025, ex parte order was passed and the order dated 31/10/2025 was subsequent order since Appellant has already proceeded ex parte, he has no jurisdiction to file the Appeal against the subsequent order.
We are of the view that against the order dated 31/10/2025, even though it was ex parte order, Right of remedy of Appeal cannot be lost for any person who feels aggrieved hence, we do not find any merit in the objection of the Counsel for Respondent. Objection overruled.
This Appeal have been filed against the order dated 31/10/2025 in CA-330/ND/2018. Adjudicating Authority passed following order.
“CA-330/ND/2018: Due to paucity of time, the hearing is deferred to 14.11.2025. However, in the meantime, the status qua regarding there in the property in question should be maintained by all concerned parties.”
In the Application, CA-330/ND/2018, notices were issued and Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 10/09/2025 to proceed the ex parte and on next date 31/10/2025, the impugned order was passed.
Ld. Counsel for Respondent submitted that it is open for the Appellant to file an Application for setting aside the order proceeding ex parte as well as the interim order of the Status quo.
In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that course open for the Appellant is to file Application for setting aside order proceeding ex parte as well as the interim order passed on 31/10/2025. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in giving liberty to the Appellant to file the above two applications, as submitted by the Counsel for the Respondent also. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on merits of either Parties contention and it is for the Adjudicating Authority to consider and take appropriate decision at an earlier date.
With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed.