9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 224 days in filing the present appeal. Consequently, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Along with the said application filed under Section 5, an affidavit of the previous counsel who represented the appellant is also annexed. The aforesaid application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is strongly opposed by the respondent who had filed reply thereto refuting the statements made in the application. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 9th August, 2004. It is stated that the certified copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was taken back by the counsel for the appellant for refiling. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the aforesaid appeal which was returned under objections, was not refiled and in fact a fresh appeal came to be filed later on. No proper statement is forthcoming in the present appeal as to why a fresh appeal came to be filed and why the earlier appeal which was taken back could not have been refiled by the appellant. Negligence and inaction on the part of both, the counsel and the appellant is writ large on the face of the record. 4. Although, the statements made in the application are contained in about 16 paragraph, but the same are extremely vague and ambiguous. The explanation for the delay of 224 days appears to be too insuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per no judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. There is no proper explanation of the delay, much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation. We reject the application of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant also stands dismissed. CM 7300/2005 The application stands dismissed as having become infructuous. - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
