Full Text
RFA 820/2015
M/S UNICURE REMEDIES PVT LTD Appellant
Through: Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Advocate
Through O CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHV SHAKDHER
04.12.2015 CMNo.29379/2015 and CMNo.29380/20l5 (Exemption'^
ORDER
1. Allowed'subject to just exceptions. CM No.29381/2015 fcondonation of delav in re-fllingi
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 19 days in re filing the appeal.
3. For the reasons given therein, the delay is condoned and the ~\ application is disposed of. CM No.29377/2015 fcondonation ofdelav of834 davs in Filingi
4. This is an application seeking condonation ofdelay of 834 days in filing the appeal.
5. The reasons given inthe application are as follows (i). The matter was proceeded exparte and therefore, the appellant could not prosecute the case properly. (ii). One ofthe main counsels was elevated to the bench. (in). The appellant had given an undertaking to this court to withdraw the RFA 820/2015 Page 1 of[2] 2015:DHC:12014 product and therefore, animpression was cast thatthedispute had gotover. (iv). Neither the associate nor any other person informed the appellant aboutthe pendency ofthe suit nor askedfor expenses. (v). The appellant obtained knowledge of the impugned judgment and decree only when execution proceedings were taken out before the executing court in Gujarat. (vi). The appellant approached another counsel who fell ill and was advised bed rest for two months. (vi)(a). To be noted, the prescription slip of the counsel has been appended in this behalf. 5.[1] In so far as the aforesaid grounds are concerned, they are vague and bald as there are no material particulars on record qua any ofthem save and except the last ground. 5.[2] In so far as the counsel's illness is concerned, even according to him, he was advised bedrest for a periodof two months. Evenif, I wereto givea leeway of two (2) months in respect of the period of delay involved in preferringthe appeal, even so, the delay, is substantial. 5.[3] In these circumstances, the delay cannot be condoned, as no "sufficient cause" is shown.
6. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. RFA 820/2015 and CMNo.29378/2Q15 Istav'^
7. In view ofthe fact that CM No.29377/2045 has been dismissed, the captioned appeal and the pending application wdlTilie^the same fate. Consequently, they are dismissed as well. RAJlVSHAkoi^R, DECEMBER 04,2015/yg RFA 820/2015 )) Crr>-^& of[2] !..jhw Ofn- 1 /ytu] UL