Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

delay in this case was of about 5 years. He points out that in the course of cross-examination, the appellant has admitted that her advocate had informed her about disposal of the suit. The learned counsel points out that even the Doctor who was examined have referred to the medication offered to husband of respondent No.1 on account of paralysis for the period between 2008 to 2010 and the appeal was however instituted in the year 2013. 

 Dinesh Sherla                                                             6-cwp-7076-17



         5]      Mr. Wadikar, learned counsel for the respondents,

defends the impugned order on the basis of the reasoning reflected therein. He points out that the respondents are financially in a week position, apart from being illiterate. He points out that respondent No.1's husband suffers from paralysis attack and it is in these circumstances, she was unable to attend the Court. He, therefore, submits that this petition may be dismissed.

6] The rival contentions now fall for determination. 7] In this case, respondent No.1 not only filed an application seeking condonation of delay, but further she examined herself as well as the Doctor, who had issued a Certificate on the aspect of treatment of her husband who was afflicted with paralysis. Learned Trial Judge has appreciated the evidence in some details and thereafter exercised the discretion in a positive manner so as to condone the delay.