2018 (4) TMI 1991 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 546 days in filing the appeal suit - no sufficient reasons for delay - suit for recovery of money as against the petitioner/appellant - HELD THAT - The reasons stated by the petitioner was not accepted by the trial court as well as the Apex Court. The petitioner has not chosen to file the first appeal in time. But he has filed the present petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal suit, by narrating the same reasons stated in the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said reasons stated by the petitioner was also not accepted by the Apex Court. Hence, this court come to the conclusion that the reasons stated in this petition are not sufficient and they are not acceptable. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal suit, sufficiency of reasons for condonation of delay, contradictory stand of the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone a delay of 546 days in filing an appeal suit. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to improper service of summons leading to an ex-parte decree against him. Despite attempts to set aside the decree through various legal avenues, including a Civil Revision Petition and a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's efforts were unsuccessful. The petitioner sought to condone the delay in filing the appeal suit based on the same reasons presented earlier. However, the respondent contended that the petitioner was aware of the decree and intentionally delayed proceedings. The respondent argued that the reasons provided were insufficient and that the petitioner's actions indicated a contradictory stand.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the court noted that the petitioner had previously attempted to set aside the ex-parte decree through legal channels without success. The court found that the reasons presented by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal suit were not accepted by the trial court or the Apex Court. The court observed that the petitioner had not filed the appeal suit in a timely manner and had resorted to the present petition using the same reasons that were previously rejected. The court concluded that the reasons provided were insufficient and not acceptable, leading to the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. The court also determined that the legal precedents cited by the petitioner's counsel were not applicable to the circumstances of this case.