Court Dismisses Petition to Excuse 546-Day Delay in Appeal, Citing Insufficient and Contradictory Reasons.

The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to condone a 546-day delay in filing an appeal suit. The petitioner had previously failed to set aside an ex-parte decree through various legal avenues, including a Civil Revision Petition and a Special Leave Petition. The court found the reasons for the delay insufficient and contradictory, noting that similar arguments had been rejected by both the trial court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner's reasons for the delay were not acceptable, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Legal precedents cited by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal suit, sufficiency of reasons for condonation of delay, contradictory stand of the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone a delay of 546 days in filing an appeal suit. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to improper service of summons leading to an ex-parte decree against him. Despite attempts to set aside the decree through various legal avenues, including a Civil Revision Petition and a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's efforts were unsuccessful. The petitioner sought to condone the delay in filing the appeal suit based on the same reasons presented earlier. However, the respondent contended that the petitioner was aware of the decree and intentionally delayed proceedings. The respondent argued that the reasons provided were insufficient and that the petitioner's actions indicated a contradictory stand.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the court noted that the petitioner had previously attempted to set aside the ex-parte decree through legal channels without success. The court found that the reasons presented by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal suit were not accepted by the trial court or the Apex Court. The court observed that the petitioner had not filed the appeal suit in a timely manner and had resorted to the present petition using the same reasons that were previously rejected. The court concluded that the reasons provided were insufficient and not acceptable, leading to the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. The court also determined that the legal precedents cited by the petitioner's counsel were not applicable to the circumstances of this case.

---