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
9 paragraphs · 285 wordsB. P. Routray, J
I.A. No.857 of 2019
Heard Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the Appellant - Petitioner and Mr. J.R. Deo, learned counsel appearing for Respondents - Opposite Parties.
The defendants have filed the present appeal against the reversing judgment of the 1st appellate court. There is delay of 548 days in filing the appeal which the Appellant is seeking to condone on the ground that there was strike of lawyers at Rourkela for a long period and as such he was unable to get the certified copy. Besides this, the Director who is representing the Appellant - Company was suffering from jaundice for a considerable period. The objection raised by the Respondent is to the effect that there are three other Directors of the Appellant - Company and as such the submission regarding suffering from Jaundice by one Director cannot be considered as a ground to condone the delay. It is further submitted that though the lawyers at Rourkela were in strike but the office work of the court was going on and as such there was no hindrance on behalf of the Appellant to get the certified copies.
After hearing both parties and considering the respective submissions made and keeping in view the fact of non-cooperation by the local lawyers for a long time at Rourkela and also the fact of suffering from illness by the present representing director of the company is not disputed, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/- to the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.
The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
RSA No.310 of 2019
List this matter on 17th December, 2021...
..............................