9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Delay in re-filing the application for leave to defend. 2. Application for leave to defend not placed on record due to objections by the Registry. 3. Interpretation of relevant rules governing the re-filing of documents. 4. Consideration of negligence or casual approach in re-filing applications. Analysis: Issue 1: Delay in re-filing the application for leave to defend The appellant filed an appeal against the dismissal of the application for leave to defend due to a delay in re-filing. The initial delay of 7 days was condoned, but subsequent delays occurred in correcting errors and objections raised by the Registry. The court emphasized that the term 'sufficient cause' must be liberally construed for substantial justice. Despite the casual approach of the counsel in addressing objections promptly, the court decided to condone the delay on payment of costs by the appellant. Issue 2: Application for leave to defend not placed on record due to objections by the Registry The Registry raised objections regarding discrepancies in the application for leave to defend, leading to delays in re-filing. Despite orders to rectify these issues, the application was not placed on record promptly. The court noted the negligent approach of the counsel in addressing objections in a timely manner. Issue 3: Interpretation of relevant rules governing the re-filing of documents The appellant argued that specific rules governing appellate matters did not apply to matters on the Original Side of the Court. Reference was made to Rule 2 of Chapter-4 of the Delhi High Court Original Side Rules concerning the endorsement and scrutiny of documents. The court did not delve into the applicability of these rules but focused on the merits of the case. Issue 4: Consideration of negligence or casual approach in re-filing applications The court highlighted the casual approach of the counsel in handling objections and delays in re-filing the application for leave to defend. While negligence was evident, no mala fide intention to delay proceedings was found. The court decided to condone the delay on payment of costs by the appellant, emphasizing the need to balance justice with accountability for delays. In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, condoned the delay in re-filing the application for leave to defend, and directed the parties to appear before the learned Single Judge for further proceedings. The decision aimed to uphold justice while addressing the delays caused by the negligent approach of the counsel.
|
