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
19 paragraphs · 415 wordsS. Jagadeesan, J.
1 .Though the respondent had been served as early as 6.2.97, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. Hence the Civil
Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The revision has been filed against the order dated 31.10.1996 of the Additional District Judge,
Pondicherry in I.A. No. 12 of 1996 in unnumbered C.M.A. of 1996. The petitioner herein has filed the said application for condoning the delay of
40 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has stated in the affidavit that he is an old man aged
about 63 years and he was sick and informed that he was not able to do anything independently and he instructed his counsel to file the copy
application, and due to the non-deposit of more papers, the copy application had been struck off and subsequently the copy application has been
filed afresh and the copies have been obtained and the appeal was preferred. The lower Court, without considering the reason given by the
petitioner for condoning the delay, has taken into consideration the other factors which are not relevant for condonation of the delay. In an
application for condoning the delay, it is the duty of the court to consider whether the petitioner has got sufficient cause for the delay and if there is
sufficient cause for the delay and the explanation given by the petitioner is acceptable, the application should be ordered. But the Lower Court,
without considering the reason given by the petitioner, has commented upon the conduct of the petitioner and dismissed the application which is not
correct.
I find some force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. In an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to find out whether
the reason given by the petitioner for the delay is acceptable or not. In this case, I do not find any discussion from the order of the Lower Court
with regard to the reason given by the petitioner for the delay. It only shows that non-consideration of the relevant question by the Additional
District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal. In view of this, the order of the Court below cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. LA. No. 12
of 1996 is remanded for fresh disposal and the Lower Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law.
Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous petition is dismissed.