Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ratnesh Chandra learned Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that in view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay there are good and sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the present revision as such the delay may be condoned, the revision may be heard and disposed of on merit.
(3.) Sri Ratnesh Chandra learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the application for condonation of delay moved on behalf of the revisionist in view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application of condonation of delay and on the basis of the same he submits that as the revisionist has not explained the day to day delay in filing the present revision properly rather in a very casual manner so the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. In support of his arguments he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v/s. State of Kerala and Aer. : AIR 1998 SC 2276.;