Litigants must demonstrate diligence in their appeals, as negligence or blame on counsel does not justify condonation of significant delays.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present application, bearing CAN 1 of 2013 (Old No: CAN 5429 of 2013), has been filed for condonation of the delay of about 262 days in preferring the instant appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submits that there were no laches on the part of the petitioner in occasioning the delay in preferring the appeal.

3. By placing reliance on the averments made in the condonation application, it is pointed out that the writ petition, from which the present appeal arises, was being heard before the concerned learned Single Judge and was fixed ‘For Orders’ on July 16, 2012, on which date the erstwhile learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner had missed the matter in the list inadvertently and had not appeared at the hearing.

4. Subsequently, it is contended, when the matter was mentioned before the said learned Single Judge for being included in the list on May 3, 2013, the learned Single Judge was pleased to point out that the writ petition had already been disposed of on July 23, 2012.

5. It is contended that immediately thereafter, a certified copy was applied for in respect of the said judgment and upon obtaining the same, a change of Advocate was taken and the present appeal has been preferred.

6. As such, since there was no contemporaneous knowledge on the part of the appellant regarding the disposal of the writ petition, no steps were previously taken before May 3, 2013.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a well-settled principle of law that the litigants cannot suffer for the laches of their counsel.

8. Moreover, it is argued that in cases of condonation of delay, particularly since the period of delay is not so long, a lenient approach ought to be taken by courts.

9. Learned counsel also submits that the appeal, otherwise, has merits and ought not to be discarded at the threshold on the ground of limitation.

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer for condonation and by placing reliance on the supplementary affidavit filed to the affidavit-in- opposition by the respondents to the condonation application, points out that the averment as to the matter being mentioned before the concerned learned Single Judge on May 3, 2013 is a charade.

11. It is submitted that since there was no subsisting interim order being suffered by the respondents, there could not have arisen any occasion for the respondent to so mention the matter.

12. Furthermore, learned senior counsel places reliance on paragraph no.12 of the supplementary affidavit of the respondents to show that a supplementary affidavit, mentioning about the disposal of the writ petition, had been affirmed on May 2, 2013 in connection with a different matter, being APO 346 of 1996 with APO 347 of 1996, a copy of which was served on the present appellant.

13. Thus, the appellant had full knowledge of the disposal of the writ petition on such date independently of any mentioning.

14. Thus, it is submitted that the equitable relief of condonation of delay ought to be refused in view of the attempt on the part of the petitioner to mislead the court by stating that it derived knowledge of the disposal of the writ petition for