AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Order condoning the delay of 2606 days in filing the first appeal is under challenge in this revision petition by the first respondent in the appeal.
The appellant was not a party to the suit. The appellate court noticed that, along with the appeal, documents have been produced by the appellant prima facie indicating semblance of right with the appellant. The appellant had filed a suit as OS 34/2017 claiming right over the property which was subsequently withdrawn, which added to the delay. The said court had granted liberty to institute a fresh suit. The earlier Managing Director of the appellant Company was suffering from various ailments disabling him from prosecuting the case properly, is yet another reason stated. Though no medical records have been produced to prove the alleged ailment, the fact that he is no more is not disputed.
The appellate court found an arguable case for the appellant, was satisfied about the explanation offered for the delay and exercised its discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Such an order is not liable to be interfered with unless the order is perverse. Sufficient reasons have been given by the appellate court for its satisfaction to have the delay condoned. I am unable to find any illegality in the approach adopted by the appellate court.
However, considering the inordinate delay involved, I am of the opinion that the costs of Rs. 10,000/- as ordered by the appellate court is insufficient to compensate the petitioner who was the contesting respondent before the appellate court. The costs as ordered in the order impugned shall stand re-fixed at Rs. 25,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein on or before 15.02.2021. In the event of failure on the part of the appellant/first respondent in this CRP to pay the costs as ordered within the time stipulated, IA 1531/2019 shall stand dismissed.
CRP is ordered accordingly.