SOHAN SINGH HOTELS LTD Vs. TOURISM FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the records.

(2.) While considering the earlier application, he observed that the applicant/appellants were proceeded ex parte on 1.6.2001, that, on a application to set aside the order setting them ex parte, the said order was set aside by order dated 17.10.2001 subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost. He has pointed out that the costs were not paid. Earlier by order dated 2.3.2001, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- had been imposed upon the applicant/appellants to file written statement and that had also not been paid. He has also pointed out that without paying the costs, the written statement was surreptitiously filed into the registry. Ultimately, the ex parte final order was passed on 22.2.2002.

(3.) HOWEVER, the applicant/appellants have now, by this appeal, challenged both the orders dated 3.6.2002 and 16.10.2002. It is with reference to the order dated 3.6.2002 that the applicant/appellants have filed this application for condonation of delay. A perusal of the orders dated 3.6.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer shows that even on earlier occasion, the applicant/appellants had been set ex parte on 1.6.2001, and that was set aside on an application, and the applicant/appellants were permitted to file the written statement by imposing cost. This was not done by the applicant/appellants. That is why the ex parte final order was passed. No appeal was filed against the order dated 3.6.2002 in time, and the appeal is only now sought to be filed with an application for condoning the delay. Learned Counsel for the applicant/appellants also concedes that the applicant/appellants had approached the Hon'ble High Court after the order dated 3.6.2002. That writ petition challenging the order dated 3.6.2002 was allowed to be dismissed for default. In these circumstances, we find that negligence on the part of the applicant/appellants pervades all through, and there are no grounds for condoning the delay in filing the appeal with regard to the order dated 3.6.2002. So far as the order dated 16.10.2002 is concerned, the same has been rightly dismissed on the ground that the earlier application for the same relief had been dismissed. In these circumstances, I see no ground either to excuse the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 3.6.2002 or to interfere with the order dated 16.10.2002. Dismissed in limine.