Appellants moved by notice of motion for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an ex parte decree. The Court found the explanation for the gross delay totally untenable and unsatisfactory.
Notice of motion for condonation of delay dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Notice of Motion No.1495 of 2001
in
Appeal Ld.Nlo.589 of 2001
in
Suit No.1643 of 1981
Messrs.Ahmed Woollen Mills & Anr. ..Appellants
Vs.
Syndicate Bank ..Respondent
Shri N.K.Mudnaney for appellants.
None for respondents.
CORAM: A.P.SHAH &
S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ.
10th January,2005
P.C.
1. Heard Advocates.
2. This is defendant’s notice of motion for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. The appeal is directed against the exparte
decree passed in summary suit filed by the
respondent Bank. The suit was filed in 1981 and
the writ of summons was duly served upon the
defendants. Inspite of service of summons the
defendants failed to file the written statement and
consequently the exparte decree came to be passed
on 20th August, 1996. There is a delay of more
than 5 years in filing this appeal. Explanation
given by the defendants for the delay is wholly
untenable and unsatisfactory. In our opinion, no
case is made out for condonation of such gross
delay. Notice of motion is, therefore, dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of more than 5 years in filing an appeal against an ex parte decree can be condoned.
Messrs. Ahmed Woollen Mills & Anr.
Syndicate Bank
A.P. Shah
S.J. Vazifdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court