Shanti Lal vs Anwar Ali Ansari and Another

Hon''ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi

By the Court:

The present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 539 days occurred in filing the second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Ramganj Mandi, Kota in Regular First Appeal No. 5 of 2006, whereby the appellate court had confirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Kanwas, District-Kota. It is submitted by learned counsel Ms Anita Agarwal for the applicant appellant that the delay was caused as the applicant was suffering from health problem and he had acute backache problems. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, submitted that if the explanation is found satisfactory, the delay should be condoned. she further submitted that she has not attributed any negligence on the part of learned counsel, however, because the applicant did not know the legal intricacies, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit. Learned counsel Mr. suresh Bundela appearing for the respondents has objected against the condonation of the delay.

In the instant case, the applicant-appellant has filed the application seeking condonation of delay of 539 days occurred in filing the appeal on the ground that he was suffering from health problems, however, the applicant has not annexed any document to show that he was suffering from such problem. The applicant-appellant has also not attributed any negligence to his counsel who was appearing for him in the lower court. under the circumstances, it appears that he alone and not his lawyer was negligent in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. There is no disagreement with the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, however, in the instant case, the applicant has not attributed any negligence to his lawyer and therefore the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is axiomatic that the applicant has to explain the delay of each day and that too satisfactorily. That having not been done by the applicant, the present application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.