9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner is served with a notice of the refusal to state a case to the High Court. According to the application filed for condoning the delay, which is C.M. No. 1292/81, the petitioner was served on 24th August, 1980, and hence if this is correct, the limitation period would expire on 23rd February, 1981. The explanation for the delay is that the record clerk of M/s K. A. Sethi, advocate, wrongly calculated the limitation period to expire on 11th March, 1981, " instead of 11th February, 1981 ". It was also stated that when the record clerk put the case for preparing the petition before the counsel, the mistake was detected, and it was found that the application should have been filed on 11th February, 1981, and hence was belated. The appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held in many reported cases. Reference was made to Kuldip Singh v. Krishan Kumar, AIR 1974 Delhi 145, decided by Prithvi Rai J. In that case, the clerk had misplaced the copy and there were exceptional circumstances for condoning the delay. What had happened was that the appeal was filed on 10th July, 1972, along with an application for exempting the filing of the certified copy of the judgment. (It was second appeal under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958). The limitation period expired on 1st August, 1972, but the certified copy was filed on 8th August, 1972, although it had been ready earlier and had been delivered for filing in the court. The explanation by the appellant was that the document had been misplaced in some other file by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d copy of the appellate court's judgment and the certified copy of the trial court's judgment, do not exist. So, there was no impediment at all to the filing of the application on any day during the period of six months. Furthermore, the petitioner was actually served before 24th August, 1980. In addition to all this, we find that the power-of-attorney (vakalatnama) in favour of the counsel who filed the application in this court is dated 11th March, 1981. We accordingly cannot accept the explanation that this is a fit case in which the delay should be condoned. We accordingly reject the application for condonation of delay and accordingly dismiss I.T.C. No. 44 of 1981, as being barred by time. However, we would refrain from passin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
