Jagdish Chand vs Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank on 31 August 2018

MA No.165/17 In SA No.22/16 Jagdish Chand Vs HPGB

Item No.55 31.08.2018 Present: None for the applicant Shri R S Bhatia, counsel for the respondent bank None appeared on behalf of applicant. There is no request either for pass over or for adjournment even after 3rd pass over. IA No.813/17 By way of aforesaid application the counsel for the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 154 days in filing the accompanied MA. The counsel for the respondent bank has straight way argued on aforesaid IA without filing reply to IA and submitted that aforesaid IA has no merit as the applicant has admitted all the proceedings and did not bother to attend the court proceedings and conduct of the applicant reflects from the proceeding sheets as well as no sufficient ground has been made by the applicant for condonation of delay in filing the accompanied MA. I have heard the counsel for the respondent bank and perused the record and after going through the arguments made by the counsel for the respondent bank and in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.16963 of 2017 titled as Iridium India Telecom Ltd Vs Doha bank QSC & Anr., this court has no power to condone the delay that too 154 days to which no sufficient ground has been made by the applicant. Since the applicant has failed to prove the delay, hence IA No.813/17 for condonation of delay is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. MA No.165/17 Since IA No.813/17 for condonation of delay is dismissed, hence MA No.165/17 also stands dismissed.

(HARCHARN SINGH)

Presiding Officer,

DRT-I, Chandigarh Rajinder 31.08.18