- (1.) The application for preponing is allowed. Though reply has been filed by the contesting-respondent but the counsel for the contesting-respondent has not objected preponing. Civil Misc. Application No.7499-CI of 2014 for condonation of delay and Civil Misc. Application No.7501-CI of 2014 for stay of operation of judgment are taken up today. CM No.7499-CI of 2014
(2.) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting-respondent contested this application. He has cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Ramesh Kumar, 1996 112 PunLR 25, in which it is held that for delay of 182 days in filing the appeal, the explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. Administrative delays have to be properly explained. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has further cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 5 SCC 459. In that case, there was delay of 1067 days in filing the appeal. He has also cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs vs. Exe Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and another, 2009 153 PunLR 128. In that case, there was delay of 1724 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for contesting-respondent further cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan, Mumbai, 2012 5 SCC 157. In that case, there was delay of 7 years in filing the appeal. I have gone through all the above-cited judgments and the same having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case.;