HARI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE presence of the respondent No.10, the copetitioner with the appellants/petitioners before the writ court is not required to consider this appeal or any of the I.A. of the same. Consequently, the notice of I.A.No.1520/2015, appellant's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is not required to such respondent No.10, hence, the same is deferred and dispensed with against such respondent.

(2.) HAVING heard the appellant's counsel on I.A.No.1520/15, the aforesaid application of the appellants for condoning the delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal, for the reasons stated in it, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the alleged delay, hence, by allowing the I.A., the same is condoned. Pursuant to it the appeal is taken up for admission.

(3.) APPELLANT 's counsel is heard.