Notice - Condonation of Delay - The court held that if a petition or application is not filed within the period of limitation, the concerned party should be heard before the court exercises its power of condoning the delay, as established in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Shaiad Chandra Vindayak Dongre and Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 42. The impugned order was set aside and the case remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to hear the petitioners before deciding the application for condonation of delay.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners argued that no notice of the application for condonation of delay had been given to them before the impugned order was passed by the Trial Court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioners, and therefore allowed the petition, setting aside the order and remanding the case to the Trial Court with directions to hear the petitioners before deciding the application for condonation of delay.

Issues: Failure to give notice of application for condonation of delay to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The party concerned should be heard before the court exercises its power of condoning the delay, as established in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Shaiad Chandra Vindayak Dongre and Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 42.

Final Decision: The impugned order dated 8.3.1994 was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to hear the petitioners before deciding the application moved by the respondent for condonation of delay in filing the complaint.