Single judge allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal after satisfying that the delay was bonafide and not intentional, as prayed for.
Application for condonation of delay allowed; matter disposed of.
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.
03.12.2021 Present:
CMP(M) No.860 of 2020
Mr. Kulwant Singh Katoch, Advocate, for the applicants.
Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
CMP(M) No.860 of 2020
As per report of the Registry, service of
respondent No.2 is still awaited.
At this stage, Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 also. Power of Attorney, as prayed for, be filed within three weeks.
By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The reasons as to why the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation are spelled out in paras 2 to 4 of the application.
Reply to the application has been filed by respondent No.3.
Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and after going through the averments
made in the application as well as reply filed to the same by respondent No.3, as this Court is satisfied that delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and not intentional, this application is allowed, as prayed for. The application stands disposed of.
FAO No. of 2021
Be Registered. Heard. Admit . Post
admission notice. Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate accepts post admission notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, whereas, Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate accepts post admission notice on behalf of respondent No.3. List in due course. Record be called for.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
December 03, 2021 (Rishi)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay in filing an appeal was bonafide and allowed.
Applicants
Respondents No.1 and 2
Respondent No.3
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
