This single judge court allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The applicant explained the 51-day delay due to absence from the court and waiting for a disability certificate. The court found the explanation sufficient.
The application for condonation of delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is allowed.
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.
15.05.2017
CMP.M No. 884 of 2016
Present: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2.
Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Chandan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
CMP.M No. 884 of 2016
The present application is maintained by the applicant/appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal. As per the applicant, when the impugned award was passed by the learned Court below he was not present in the Court, as his counsel has assured him that he will call him as and when his presence shall be required and he remained under this impression, hence he has not contacted his counsel. It is further averred that at the time of recording the statement of the applicant, he was not having his disability certificate pertaining to the injuries and on advise of his counsel he applied for the same before the Medical Board of Zonal Hospital, Mandi, and in the month of May, 2016, after receiving the certificate when the applicant visited the office of his counsel, he came to know that the award has already been decided in his favour. After receiving the copy of award, the applicant visited Shimla on 28.05.2016 and thereafter without any delay, the appeal as well as application was drafted. The application is duly supported with an affidavit. Respondent No. 4, by filing reply to the application averred that the delay is intentional, hence the application is required to be dismissed.
Heard. Taking into consideration the grounds, as taken in the application as well as the fact that the delay, as occurred, has been sufficiently explained, the application is allowed and the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
FAO No
Appeal be registered.
Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate, accepts service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Let copy of grounds of appeal be supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents. List after two weeks. In the meantime, Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent 1 may also be filed.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge 15th May, 2017 (raman)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 51-day delay in filing an appeal is sufficiently explained to warrant condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicant/Appellant
Respondents 1 & 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Chander Bhusan Barowalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
