OBJECTIONS OF 2ND TO 4TH RESPONDENTS TO DELAY CONDONATION
APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER:-
1. The interim application is not maintainable since the affidavit accompanied
the application does not speaks truth and its vague and not specific in
disclosing accurate reasons for the absence of petitioner/plaintiff in the days
wherein court has scheduled to plaintiff evidence.
2. The affidavit consist of mere allegations un-supported by documents, hence
liable to be dismissed. The written statement and objections filed by these
respondents to the main petition be read as part and parcel of this objections
to delay condonation application.
3. The matter of condonation of delay, it is an established position that every
day's delay has to be explained and a person who seeks the exercise of the
discretion to condone the delay in his favour cannot run away by making a mere
general statement or mere allegation unsupported by document or mere passing of
his laches upon his advocate.
4. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has
been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a
matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for
the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by s. 5. If
sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application
for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone.
5. Even if delay is condoned no purpose will be served because, The main case
is one for specific performance of contract upon the suit schedule property
which is not binding on these respondents as per the decree made against the
petitioner and 1st respondent herein on 25-10-2008 on the file of 2nd Addl
Civil Judge (Jrdn) at Tumkur in OS 386/2007 regarding the same schedule
property. Moreover from the date of the said decree upto three years that is
upto 24-10-2011 the plaintiff has not sought the amendment of plaint in respect
of the specific enforcement of contract in relation to only the share of 1st
respondent in OS 168/2007 in this court. The same decree of another court is
neither challenged by the petitioner in any forum. The relief claimed in the
plaint cannot be amended after the statutory limitation. The case itself not
maintainable under the law and hence the application to condone the delay
application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each
side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts
to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations
from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take. –
The petitioner herein has not disclosed in his pleadings the exact reasons and
does not provided documents in support of his application to enable this
respondents to take specific objections to the nature of documents with counter
verifications for knowing the reasons for the delay.
Where fore the application to condone the delay is not maintainable and these
respondents humbly seeks court intervention by way of dismissal of application
in the interest of Justice.
Comments
Post a Comment