* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No. 147/2013
% 9th July, 2014 SHRI MAHIPAL SINGH & ANR. ......Appellants Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Advocate. VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent Through: Mr. A.S. Dateer, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.4811/2013 (condonation of delay)
1. There is a delay of 436 days in filing of the appeal and one of the reasons is that the earlier Advocate Sh. S.P. Singh who had the file had expired. No doubt, the death of the Advocate is after sometime after passing the judgment however that would be one relevant circumstance for condonation of delay. Also, the substantial amount of time taken causing delay is on account of death of the Advocate because the impugned judgment is dated 30.9.2011 and the Advocate died in June, 2012.
2. Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of N. Balakrishnan FAO No.147/2013 Page 1 of 3 Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 has held that Courts should be liberal in condoning the delay if there is no want of good faith or gross negligence. In the present case, appellant would have no benefit from unnecessary delay in filing of the appeal and therefore for the reasons stated in the application, delay of 436 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of c