- (1.) The present Special Appeal has been filed along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, supported with an affidavit. It is reported to be barred by lapse of time by 535 days.
(2.) Appellants are not disputing due service of notices upon them in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. One of the cause shown by them for condonation of inordinate delay of 535 days in filing the instant time-barred appeal is that the writ petition was decided by learned single Judge on 14-8-96 in which neither reply was filed nor the case was attended by the State counsel or Panel lawyer in the absence of file of the case. The aforesaid cause shown by the appellant in filing the present Special Appeal after inordinate delay of 535 days cannot said to be sufficient within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(3.) We are of the opinion that once notices were duly served upon the respondents the appellants ought to have filed reply and State counsel or Panel lawyer ought to have attended the case when the case was called on for hearing.Non-availability of the file of the case to the State counsel or Panel lawyer is no groundfor condonation of inordinate delay of 535 days. After service of notices upon the appellants, non-filing of reply in the writ petition is grossest negligence on the part of appellants.;