Smt. Jagadamba vs D. Govindaswamy

N.K. Patil, J.—Misc. Cvl. 23116/2010 and Misc. Cvl. 23117/2010 are filed by the counsel for petitioner, for condoning the delay of about 889 days in filing the recalling application and for recalling the order dated 10th June 2008 respectively. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

The delay of 889 days in filing the recalling application, for recalling the order dated 10th June 2008 is explained from paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Misc. Cvl. application. In the said affidavit, it is stated that, on 10-06-2008, when the counsel of the petitioner was proceeding to attend the case, due to heavy traffic block, she could not reach the Court in time. Therefore, when the case was called on 10-06-2008, there was no representation on his behalf and accordingly, it was dismissed for non prosecution. There is a delay in filing the petition and the same is for the reason that the petitioner is aged about 60 years and she has been under medical treatment of Dr. Mahalekshmi from 12-04-2008 for Acute Arthritis in both her legs and she is producing the relevant documents before this Court for kind perusal and consideration and more over there is no one to take care of her and her husband as he is also ailing. Further, it is stated that there is absolutely no deliberate default or latches in proceeding in the case and therefore, if the review petition is not restored to file, she will be put to severe hardship, injury and loss and sought to condone the delay, in the interest of justice.

After going through the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the Miscellaneous civil application, I am of the considered view that the inordinate delay of 889 days in filing the recalling application has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 889 days in filing the recalling application. Whenever there is inordinate delay, the party is bound to explain each day''s delay in filing the appeal by setting out the dates and events. In the instant case, there is inordinate delay of 889 days. Not even a single date, except the date of dismissal of the review petition is mentioned in the entire affidavit. The reasons assigned by the petitioner do not inspire the confidence of this Court. Hence, in view of non explanation of inordinate delay in filing the recalling application, in a satisfactory manner, I am of the view that delay cannot be condoned nor the petitioner has made out a good case to condone the delay.

Further, it can be seen that the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, without taking permission from the concerned Officer, has tampered the Office papers, by putting the whitener in the fourth line of the Misc. Civil Application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and correcting the number of days of delay as 889 days, without her signature. This is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, Misc. Cvl. 23116/2010 is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and accordingly, it is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of Misc. Cvl. 23116/2010 for condonation of delay, Misc. Cvl. 23117/2010 filed for recalling the order does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed.