- (1.) I.A. No. 10151/2016 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. IA No. 10152/2016 (for condonation of delay of 690 days in filing of the appeal)
(2.) This is an application seeking condonation of the delay of 690 days in filing the appeal against an order passed by the Joint Registrar ("JR") on 16th September 2014 declining to give any further opportunity to the Appellant/Respondent No.2 to file a reply and thereby closing the said right to file a reply.
(3.) The reasons given by the Applicant are as under: "3. For some quite time now particularly after the demise of her father (who was also an Advocate), Appellant has been suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This is a psychiatric condition where the patient suffers from panic attacks specially while dealing with issues on which they are sensitive. In the case of Appellant it is issues of close family members. While the Appellant who is also visually handicapped is at ease handling her clients' matters she gets severe panic attacks while dealing with the instant case involving her younger sister and her late mother. Appellant was advised by a senior psychiatrist that anti-depressants and tranquilizers which are normally prescribed for such disorders do not help as they produce withdrawal symptoms which include rebound anxiety and panic attacks. Appellant's PTSD got worse after her demise of her mother (deceased) in October 2013. The Respondent was fully aware of the Appellant's condition and took full advantage of it. 4. Psychiatrists advise that situations that trigger panic attacks should be avoided at all cost. It is precisely for this reason that Appellant who drafted and finalized her objections (written statement) in the instant matter and had her supporting affidavit attested by the Delhi High Court Oath Commissioner on 07.07.2014 did not actually file the same. Strange as it may seem, the situation was akin to a surgeon preparing to perform a life saving surgery on his son but developing cold feet at the eleventh hour. 5. Attempts by Appellant to engage Counsel were not successful. Counsel who thought they would end up working gratis for a colleague encouraged her to deal with the matter in person; which she could not do.";