The court condoned a 122-day delay in filing a main appeal. The applicant attributed the delay to ineffective counsel who failed to inform them of the judgment disposal. As the respondent did not appear, the matter was disposed of ex-partes.
The delay in filing the main appeal is condoned; the application is 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.
NHAI Vs. Thakur Dass.
OMP(M) No. 91 of 2024
15.10.2024 Present: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant/ appellant.
None for the respondent.
Applicant/appellant seeks condonation of 122 days’
delay in instituting the main appeal.
As per office report, respondent has been duly served. The matter has been repeatedly passed over, however, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Hence,
proceeded against ex-parte.
2. The applicant has pleaded that the impugned judgment was pronounced by the learned District Judge on 18.10.2023. Its certified copy was applied on 21.10.2023. The same was attested on 07.11.2023 and was delivered on 08.11.2023. However, disposal of the case on 18.10.2023 was not within the knowledge of the applicant as the same was never intimated to it by its counsel.
3. The application is with the further averments that the applicant became aware on 21.03.2024 about the disposal of the main case on 18.10.2023. On account of closing of the financial year, the empaneled counsel for the applicant throughout the State of H.P. were directed to furnish the information of the pendency or otherwise of the cases of the appellant. That it is only thereafter the applicant came to know about the fact that the instance case had been disposed of on
18.10.2023. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the applicant by its counsel.
4. The applicant further submits that due to such inefficient and lackadaisical attitude of the said law firm/counsel, M/s M.V. Kini & Co., 362 cases pending in District Mandi have been withdrawn and had been allotted to some other firm.
5. The reasons for the delay in filing the appeal have been attributed upon having no information about disposal of the case from the counsel conducting the said case. The applicant has demonstrated its bonafide by pleading that it has already withdrawn its cases from the law firm conducting the aforesaid cases.
6. Even otherwise, there is no opposition to the prayer made in the application. As noticed above there is no appearance for the non-applicants. For the cogent reasons given and established in the application, the delay in filing the main appeal is condoned. The application to stand disposed of.
Arb. Appeal No.______/2024
7. Be Registered.
List for consideration after during the course of next
week.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
October 15, 2024 (R.Atal)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay in instituting the main appeal is permissible given the applicant's lack of knowledge about the disposal of the impugned judgment and subsequent change of counsel.
NHAI
Thakur Dass
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
