Dev Pal (Ex-Station ... vs The Chairman on 25 February, 2013
13. The Applicant has filed a MA along with the application stating that there was no delay as the he had served a legal notice on the respondents on 3.5.20010 followed by a reminder on 31.7.2009. Yet, the Applicant admits a delay of 84 days which occurred on account of illness of his mother. The Applicant seeks condonation of the same as it was not willful. The law as laid down in the 1995 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1273 MR Gupta vs Union of India clearly prescribes that where the injury suffered has a continuing effect it shall be the cause of action shall continue to be alive. A distinction, however, needs be drawn between the cause of action which are recurring by nature and those which do have a recurring effect. The relief no (i) relating to the bond amount could be said to have a recurring effect while the others are all having an one-time effect.