M/S S.C.P. Agriculture Pumps v. M/S R.R. Polymers And ANR.
!
"
#
"
"$% &'
"%( ) * +, , M/S C.P. AGRICULTURE PUMPS ,, --.
( $
/), M/S R.R. POLYMERS AND ANR.
,,%)-& % $) * 0!1 ,
2
1
Present:
Mr. Karan Sachdeva, Advocate for the applicant. ...
1
, 4. 1.
The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal. Leave to appeal has been sought for by the applicant against the judgment dated 04.08.2017 passed by the ld. JMIC, Ludhiana, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed in default and the respondents were acquitted.
2.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 198 days, has argued that the delay has occurred as the applicant was informed much later by the counsel representing it before the trial Court that the complaint filed by it had been dismissed in default. Thereafter, the applicant engaged the counsel before this Court and application seeking leave to appeal was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., therefore, certain objections were raised by the Registry. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the circumstances of the case indicate that the delay in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is neither intentional nor
deliberate hence delay deserves to be condoned. 3.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the paper;book.
4.
It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in
titled as
decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:;
!" #$%$
& !
& &
'
( )
*
(+ )
()
, ()
-
( ) ,
*
,,-
+
.
,,,,
(
)
* - ,/ "
(+ )
* * 0
1 -
+ /, - '
/, !
2 ()
()
.
2
/,,
+
3
+
/,,,! -
+
*
.
,
* * * & 4
5
6 * .
&
5.
More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
! "# $%&% & "'(& ) *
+ ,
( has observed as under:
7! -
* -
- ,8&&
9 -
- & :;
9
#< ! - =& " 4((>?#<)#@ --#A & +
;#
# !
*
,
5
& !
-
,
#@! ' -
+
!
*&
* 0 0
+
B
6.
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as #
&--" -"./01 2) & "))2 .3(& ) *
+ 4( has observed as under:
>% 4
-
*** *** *** *** *** *** ) 8
2 () :
7.
Condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is sought for on the following relevant averments: 7>!
:
!
<! -
@>-9;-
+'
& #<<>?#=
<C(@)-9;- >?<>?#'
@! #$ appeal is neither intentional willful, but due to the bonafide mentioned above." 8.
A perusal of the above;said averments clearly show that no reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant to condone the delay of 198 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal. The applicant has failed to provide any concrete explanation or document to demonstrate his genuine efforts in pursuing the matter within the prescribed time limit. No cause much less sufficient cause, as required in law, has been shown to justify or condone the significant delay of 198 days
in filing the application seeking leave to appeal. The delay is both inordinate and inexplicable. Merely attributing the delay to unforeseen circumstances, without any supporting details or evidence to substantiate these claims, does not meet the legal threshold for condonation. The applicant has neither shown continuous interest in the case nor presented any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances that could explain such an extensive delay.
8.1 The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated hereinabove, the application seeking condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal merits dismissal. Decision 9.
The application (CRM;21575;2018) seeking condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been dismissed, the application seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed as well accordingly.
10.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. +, , 2
1 D E
"
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes No Whether reportable Yes No