2. Though, vide orders dated 27.03.2024, 02.04.2024 and 03.04.2024 sufficient time was granted to respondents to file reply/instructions, but fact remains that till date neither instructions nor reply has Hbeen filed. Learned Senior counsel arguing on behalf of the respondents fairly stated during proceedings of the case that controversy can be decided on the basis of material already available on record.”

4. In such circumstances, we do not propose now to hear the counsel on merrits, since apparently, it was wrongly projected before us at that point of time that opportunity to file reply had not been given. Even if that was the case, then, an appropriaCte application should have been filed before the learned Single Judge immediately on the decision of the case as the order was passed in the open Court, which would be clear gthat the order is oral in nature on 04.04.2024.

5. Having not filed the appropriate application, the present appeal was filed and 339 days’ delay in re-filing the appeal also occurred and we condoned the delay on 20.08.2025. If there was any such requirement of filing reply or objection, the matter should have been placed before the learned Single Judge at the ea