Tribunal denies appeal due to 2,054-day delay post office shift. Negligence cited.

The Tribunal denied the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, which was delayed by 2,054 days due to the misplacement of the original order during the shifting of the appellant's office. Despite arguments of a strong case on merits, the Tribunal found the appellant's negligence in pursuing the appeal evident, as they were aware of the impugned order and its consequences. As no valid cause was presented for the significant delay, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, negligence in filing appeal

Delay in filing appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal after a delay of 2,054 days, attributing the delay to the misplacement of the original order during the shifting of their office. An affidavit was filed by a partner of the appellant firm in support of the application for condonation of delay, stating that the non-production of the order copy was unintentional. Another affidavit highlighted the merits of the case. The appellant's counsel argued that a good case on merits justified condoning the delay in the interest of justice.

Condonation of delay:
The JDR representing the respondent contended that the appellant's affidavit did not mention unawareness of the impugned order, suggesting that they could have obtained a certified copy and filed the appeal on time. The JDR emphasized the patent negligence on record, opposing the condonation of the delay.

Negligence in filing appeal:
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the appellants were indeed aware of the impugned order and the consequences of not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal noted that the negligence in not pursuing the appeal in a timely manner was evident from the appellant's actions. As no valid cause was presented to explain the significant delay of 2,054 days, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal.

---