AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 129 wordsDr. T. Amarnath Goud, J
[1] When the case is called, Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI appears on behalf of the applicant.
[2] It is seen from the Registry’s note dated 18.08.2025 that despite service of notice upon the respondents through ‘Dasti service’, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
[3] This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay of 320 days in preferring the appeal.
[4] Upon hearing the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of the averments made in the application, this Court is of the view that the averments made in the application are self-explanatory and thus, the same stand allowed.
[5] Accordingly, the interlocutory application is allowed and disposed of.