LAW FOR ALL

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 193 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL - REFUSED AS THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION THAT HIS COUNSEL NOT INTIMATED = It is surprising to note that the application does not mention the name of the earlier counsel. There is nothing on record to show that any complaint has been filed before the Bar Council or any legal notice was served upon earlier counsel. There is also nothing on record to show that petitioners have initiated any action against their earlier counsel for deficiency in services, under the Act. Affidavit of earlier counsel also did not see the light of the day. The petitioners are supposed to explain the ‘day-to-day’ delay but the needful was not done. Such like stories can be created at any time. To our mind, in such like cases, false allegations are often made against the counsel so that the delay should be condoned. It is the duty cast on the petitioners themselves to find out as to what has happened to their case and why appeal has not been filed. They cannot put entire blame upon their counsel. The facts of this case rather reveal negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioners themselves. - It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant’s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning the delay.