AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Balia, J.—Learned counsel want some time to file reply of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. We find from the report that all the notices have been served prior to 17.4.2001 though the notice of respondent No.2 has been received by this court later on. In spite of the service of notices almost 9 months before, no reply to the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed In these. circumstances adjournment sought is refused.
We find from the perusal of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act that the appellant has received the information about the decision of the case through post only on 4th October, 1999 and thereafter he has contacted his counsel and after obtaining necessary copies has filed this appeal on 22.10.99, that is say that within > the reasonable time of receiving the information about the decision of the case.
In these circumstances we are of the opinion that infact the information from the advocate as per the affidavit filed by the appellant himself was received after the expiry of the period. In these circumstances it is apparent that the appellant has been prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.