Annexure 3, that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, however, only one sentence has been devoted stating that the appellant has not been able to set forth any sufficient reason for condoning the delay. The petitioner has brought the application filed for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal by way of Annexure 4 appended with the supplementary counter affidavit. It appears that the petitioner has taken a ground that the matter was finally heard by the District Magistrate on 28.10.2014 but no date for pronouncement of the order was ever fixed or communicated to the petitioner and, thereafter, the petitioner fell ill and remained under the treatment of a doctor. Necessary prescriptions were appended with petition for condoning the delay. Thereafter, when he came to know about the date of passing of order, he obtained a certified copy by applying it on 26.03.2015 which was supplied to him on 31.03.2015 and, thereafter, the appeal was preferred after a delay of about three months. However, the grounds raised by the petitioner have not been discussed anywhere by the appellate authority. It is not recorded as to why the grounds raised by the petitioner for condoning the delay were not found to be tenable. A simple finding has been recorded that no satisfactory reason could be set forth by the petitioner for condoning the delay.
