A.IR:777/2010
IA 1360/10 (delay) :Ld. Counsel Shri K.A. Ramakrishnan appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew the attention of this Tribunal to the affidavit filed in support of the petition more particularly to paragraph 5 of the affidavit and stated that the reasons have been properly explained in the said paragraph and that it was only due to non furnishing of the copy of the order by the DRT, Vishakapatnam and due to the advocate of the petitioners becoming sick the petitioners could not file the appeal in time. Ld. Counsel prayed that the delay of 419 days in filing this appeal may be condoned.
Ld. Counsel Shri R. Balachander appearing on behalf of the respondent bank stated that it can been seen that the petitioners’ counsel was aware of the final order being passed on 1.5.2009 and that the said counsel did not inform the passing of the final order to the petitioners.
Ld. Counsel stated that it can further been seen that the petitioners had only enquired with his counsel after more than a year had elapsed and that this alone reflects that the petitioners were not in any way pursuing their case. Ld. Counsel also stated that the delay has not at all been explained and that the petitioners blaming their counsel for not informing them and blaming also the DRT, Vishakapatnam for not giving a copy of the final order and further stating that the very same counsel whom the petitioners are blaming became sick and could not travel to Chennai because of his sickness cannot be reasons for condoning the delay. Ld. Counsel added that law requires each and every day of the delay to be explained and that in this case it can be seen that not even a single day of the 419 days of delay has been explained by the petitioners and prayed that this IA may be dismissed.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent bank.
It is seen that the petitioners firstly have blamed their counsel that he has failed to inform about the disposal of the case by the DRT, Vishakapatnam and secondly that the petitioners have blamed the DRT, Vishakapatnam for not furnishing a copy of the final order and thirdly that the petitioners have stated that the same counsel has become sick and could not travel to Chennai to file the appeal in time. It is well established law that the delay attributed to the inaction on the part of the advocate can never be a reason for the condonation of delay.
Further it can be seen that the petitioners have never cared to enquire about the status of their case for more than a year and when the petitioners themselves have not taken adequate steps to know the status of their case it can easily been said that the delay caused by their keeping quiet cannot be a reason for the condonation of delay.
Therefore in view of the above it can be seen that the petitioners have not established that they were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period of limitation and have also not explained the delay of 419 days that had occurred thereafter in filing the appeal.
Therefore this Tribunal is driven to conclude that the petitioners have not made out a case for the condonation of 419 days delay and further driven to conclude that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
This judgement was delivered by the Honble chairperson of DRAT Chennai on 1st March 2012
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment