Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In support of the application, appellant No.1 has filed an affidavit stating that his wife was suffering from illness with partial paralysis due to which he was providing Ayurvedic treatment through nativaidhya and he was very much keen to NC: 2025:KHC:42269 HC-KAR provide the treatment rather than concentrating in preferring an appeal and nobody was there to take care of his wife and hence the delay was caused. In support of the averments made in the affidavit, no documentary evidence is placed before the Court that his wife was suffering from paralysis.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the statement of objections contending that the delay of 1120 days is not explained properly. The learned counsel contend that each day's delay has to be explained and sufficient cause must be shown and no such sufficient cause is shown and hence the delay cannot be condoned.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no dispute with regard to the delay of 1120 days in filing the appeal. Having perused the material available on record, there is a concurrent finding. The Trial Court granted the relief and the same is confirmed in the appeal. On perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is sworn to that his wife was suffering from paralysis. But in NC: 2025:KHC:42269 HC-KAR order to substantiate the same, no document is produced before the Court. It appears that in an ingenious method affidavit is sworn to that treatment was provided in Ayurveda. Having considered the contents of the affidavit, no grounds are made out to condone the delay of 1120 days in filing the appeal and hence I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.