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
2 paragraphs · 142 wordsNarendra Kumar Jain, J.—Learned Counsel for the Appellant has moved an application for restoration of the appeal. There is delay in filing the application, therefore, he has also moved an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. A notice to show cause was issued to Respondents of both the applications, but neither any reply to the applications has been filed nor any one is present on behalf of the Respondents to oppose the applications despite service of notice.
After considering submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellant and also the reasons assigned in the applications duly supported affidavits, I find this case to be fit one to condone the delay and restore the appeal. Consequently, both the applications are allowed. Delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal is condoned and first appeal is restored to its original number.