AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—The Petitioner has filed this review petition for review of the judgment dated 8th June 2012, passed in MFA. No. 1545/2010, by this Court. Along with the review petition, counsel for petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 1/2013, to condone the delay of 294 days in filing the review petition.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for review petitioner and perused the grounds urged in the review petition, the statements made in the affidavit filed along with I.A.I/2013 as also the judgment passed by this Court under review.
After perusal of the statements made in the Affidavit filed along with the application, I.A.I/2013, it is seen that, the delay of 294 days in filing the review petition has been explained in paragraph 4 to 6 stating that the petitioner was suffering from typhoid and under bed rest for a period of six months and he could meet his Advocate only during the month of December 2012 and could meet him only during the end of December 2012. He discussed with him regarding the filing of review petition and then the advocate told him that there is court vacation and that he could file the review petition only in the month of January 2013. Further, he came to know that he ought to have preferred the petition within 60 days from the date of judgment. It is further stated that the certified copy of the judgment dated 8th June 2012 was misplaced by him and hence another copy was applied and after obtaining the copy and necessary papers was kept ready to be filed and again he fell sick and the Doctor advised him not to travel. It is further stated that it is due to the aforesaid reasons that the delay has caused and that he has a good case on merit and that if the application is not allowed, he will be put to much hardship and inconvenience whereas no prejudice will be caused to the other side, if it is allowed. The said delay explained for condoning the inordinate delay of 294 days in filing the review petition is not satisfactory nor the same inspires the confidence of this Court. The said explanation offered cannot be accepted as the same is omnibus in nature. Whenever there is inordinate delay, the party is supposed to explain each day''s delay by assigning cogent and valid reasons. In the entire affidavit, not even a single date is forthcoming. Therefore, no credibility can be attached to the statements made in the affidavit. Therefore, in view of non explanation of delay properly, I.A.I/2013 is dismissed and consequently, the review petition filed by petitioner is also dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.