9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1961, within time which expired on January 10, 1987. The case made out by the petitioner is that although the reference application was made ready within time, i.e., by January 8, as the Commissioner had to leave Calcutta for urgent official business on the 8th and the 9th January, 1987, and as he returned to Calcutta on January 10, 1987, the application could not be signed and filed in time a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of affidavits and the respondent duly filed its affidavit-in-opposition and the matter came up for hearing on April 8, 1987, when the respondent did not appear at the time of hearing of the said application and it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there were only two days' delay in making the said application for reference which should be condoned. The said applicant was, however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of Law briefed its counsel to draw up the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel took time up to February 17, 1987, to draw up the said application and thereafter the draft was sent to the Ministry of Law. The petition was engrossed and sent to the office of the Commissioner for factual verification and signature. The office of the Commissioner returned the engrossed petition dul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pare the application. Although the Commissioner duly signed and returned the petition with some suggestions on February 19, 1987, there is no explanation why the notice of motion was taken out on March 4. We, however, find that the Commissioner, the petitioner, had no hand in the matter and was not at fault and as such the application should be allowed. It is well-settled that a litigant should no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
