Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: IX,5

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S. 5---Filing of appeal, delay in---Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause--Responsibilities of the litigant---Ground on which the delay was sought to be condoned was that counsel of the appellant was hospitalized who later passed away---Record revealed that the appellant/ petitioner applied for certified copies to assail impugned judgment after expiration of the prescribed period of limitation, and the appeal was barred by about seven and half months---No explanation was presented by the appellant/petitioner other than the assertion that the case file was returned to him by the family members of the deceased counsel after seven months of passing of judgment and he came to know about the judgment (to be assailed) on receiving notice issued by the Executing Court---It is the duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently and vigilantly, and to keep track of his cause on regular basis by inquiring its progress from his counsel at every stage of the case and after every date of hearing---In the present case, the appellant had admitted that his counsel had serious health issues since quite some time; accordingly, it was his duty to make some alternate arrangement either by engaging a new counsel or by appearing in person, however, he chose not to do so---It was not the case of the appellant that his counsel was on general adjournment on the relevant dates nor had any intimation in said behalf been filed by him---Moreover, appellant did not make any effort to inquire about the progress or fate of the suit---Appellant had not disclosed a specific date on which he received the case file---Furthermore the appellant took a month or so after receiving the file, for which no valid explanation had been offered---Thus, the so-called explanation offered by the appellant did not appear to be convincing or sufficient for the High/Appellate Court to exercise its discretion for condoning the unusual delay of seven and half months---Number of days by which the appeal was barred by time had not been disclosed in the application, nor the delay of each and every day had been explained therein---Thus, the delay in filing the appeal remained…