AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter comes up for consideration of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone the delay of 210 days in filing the restoration application.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the delay in filing the restoration application is caused on account of the events, which have been explained in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is submitted that the delay is bonafide and not intentional.
Reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, the aforesaid application has been vehemently opposed.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioners have not explained day to day delay in filing the restoration application, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and particularly taking note of the fact that the earlier Additional Advocate General, to whom the case was assigned, has been elevated as a High Court Judge and the file was transferred to some other Additional Advocate General, we are of the view that the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the restoration application.
Hence, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay of 210 days in filing the restoration application is condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the restoration application.
For the reasons mentioned in the restoration application, the same is allowed. The DB Civil Special Appeal No.1149/2011 is restored to its original number.
Since the respondents are duly represented through Advocate Mr. Avinash Acharya, the service is complete.
Let the matter be listed for hearing on 09.02.2024.