N. R. Garg VS DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUBHASH CHANDRA, AVM J. RAJENDRA
N. R. Garg – Appellant
Versus
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Tavish Bhushan Prasad, Advocate (through VC)
For the Respondents:Mr. Prabhat Ranjan and Ms. Seema Sundd, Advocates

ORDER (ORAL)

Heard learned Counsel for the parties briefly.

2. Alongwith the First Appeal, IA 980 of 2023 has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 331 days.

3. It is stated in the Application that the Appellant was out of India from October 2021 and returned to India in November 2022. Copy of the impugned order was made available to him on 18.11.2022. Thereafter the Appeal was filed. It is prayed that the delay be condoned.

4. We have perused the records carefully.

5. The reasons advanced by the Appellant to justify the delay caused have been considered. The only plea taken by the Appellant is that he was out of India from October 2021 till November 2022 and that he received copy of the impugned order only on 18.11.2022.

6. The law of limitation requires delay for each day of delay to be explained after expiry of the period of limitation. It is necessary that this explanation is rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable. A perusal of the application for the condonation of delay establishes beyond doubt that the delay was caused because the Appellant dealt with the case in a rather routine and casual manner.

7. In State Bank of India vs B S Agric

Click Here to Read the rest of this document