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
13 paragraphs · 195 wordsMeenakshi Madan Rai, J
Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2023 which is an application filed by the Applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of 1544 days’ delay in filing the instant Appeal.
Issue Notice to the State-Respondent.
Mr. S. K. Chettri, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State-Respondent is present on advance Notice and waives formal Notice.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that a delay of 1544 days’ has occurred on account of lapses on the part of the previous Advocate engaged for the Applicant.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor objects to the application for condonation of delay.
We have considered the grounds put forth and found that the Applicant cannot be faulted for the delay which occurred entirely on account of the lackadaisical attitude of the Counsel who was appointed by the Sikkim State Legal Services Authority. In such circumstances, having duly considered the grounds put forth in the I.A. supra, we are inclined to and accordingly condone the delay.
I.A. No.01 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly.
Heard on admission.
Admit the Appeal.
Call for the records from the Learned Trial Court.
Let Paper-Books be prepared.
List on 02-08-2023.