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
8 paragraphs · 261 wordsW. Diengdoh, J
Heard Ms. A. Rani, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 who has submitted that there is no objection to the prayer made in this application seeking condonation of delay of 264 days in filing the related appeal.
Ms. A. Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the notice upon the respondent No. 2/owner has since been affected and an affidavit-of-service has been filed in this regard. However, till date the said respondent has failed to make his appearance before this Court. It is prayed that necessary order may be passed to proceed ex-parte against such respondent.
This Court, in the first instance, on consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned that since such respondent has failed to respond to the notice and to make his appearance before the Court, therefore an ex-parte order be passed against him, after due deliberation, is convinced that the matter shall proceed ex-parte against him.
Secondly, since there is no effective opposition to the prayer made for condonation of delay, on perusal of the petition and the grounds cited therein, indicating the reasons for delay in filing the related appeal, this Court is convinced that the same are acceptable as far as this matter is concerned.
Accordingly, the delay of 264 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Petition disposed of.
Registry is directed to diarize the appeal and list the same for admission after 1(one) week.