Delay and laches rejected where dismissal was based on a mistaken bank guarantee record, and the appeal was remanded.

Delay and laches in challenging an appellate order were rejected where the record did not show service of the dismissal order and the petitioner had in fact furnished the required bank guarantee before the order was passed. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal on the mistaken footing that no guarantee had been given, making the order erroneous. On those facts, the challenge was treated as timely, the appellate order dated 13.10.1997 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the appellate order was barred by delay and laches, and whether the appellate order dismissing the appeal for want of bank guarantee could be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.

Analysis: The petitioner had furnished the bank guarantee before the appellate order was passed, and the order dismissing the appeal on the footing that no guarantee had been furnished was therefore erroneous. There was also no material to show that the dismissal order had been served on the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner's continued belief that the appeal was pending was accepted as sufficient to explain the delay in approaching the Court.

Conclusion: The delay and laches objection was rejected, the appellate order dated 13.10.1997 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh in accordance with law. The petition was thus allowed in favour of the petitioner to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The order under challenge did not survive, and the appellate authority was directed to reconsider the appeal afresh after hearing the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adverse appellate order was not shown to have been served and the record showed that the procedural condition relied upon for dismissal had in fact been satisfied, delay in challenging the order could be condoned and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

---