2008 (4) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the application, which are reproduced hereunder: 2. That the Registry raised objections and after complying with the objections the appellant filed the appeal on 24.02.2003 and again objections raised and refiled on 03.07.2003, 21.02.2004 and lastly on 21.09.2004 after removing the objections and thereafter it was found that it has caused delay of 753 days in refiling the same beyond 40 days. 3. That this delay of 753 days in refiling has been caused as the Clerk of the counsel misplaced the same and has now left the service with the counsel and the appeal has been filed now on finding the same. Thus, the delay is neither wilful or international but due to the reasons mentioned above beyond control. 5. Rule 5 of Chapter 1, Part-A ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mentioning wrong dates. This mis-statement itself, is sufficient to refuse judicial discretion in favour of the applicant-appellant. Even otherwise, the ground for condonation of delay is contained in paragraph 3 of the application wherein it is stated that the brief was misplaced by the Clerk of the counsel who has now left the service and on finding the file, the same has been filed now. Ever otherwise, no details are given as to when the Clerk of the counsel has misplaced the file, when he had left the service of the counsel for the applicant-appellant and when the file has been found. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant has stated that it was due to the fault of the Clerk that delay has been caused. 9. I am no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sented in paragraph 2 of the application that case was lastly refiled on 21.09.2004 whereas the file was returned to him on 21.09.2004 with some objections and the same was refiled lastly on 04.07.2006. It is settled law that rigour of limitation must apply where the statute so provides. Limitation cannot be condoned on the ground of compassion or equitable considerations or where the party seeking condonation appeals to be callous or negligent. My view is fortified with the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court: 12. In the case of P.K. Ramchandrar v. State of Kerala and Anr. 1997ECR785(SC) , wherein it has been held as under: The law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all ....