Full Judgment
S. Jagadeesan, J.
1. This petition is to condone the delay of 128 days in representing the papers in S.A.S.R.No. 88890 of 2000. An affidavit is filed in support of the petition for condoning the delay in representation. The party has sworn to the affidavit. The reason for the delay in representation is stated as follows:
It is respectfully submitted that the above second appeal was returned by the office on 23.11.2000. 10 days time was granted for representation. During Ist week of April, 2001, I have written a letter to the counsel about the stage of the case. Then only the counsel searched the bundle and found out and represented the same on 11.4.2001. In the meanwhile, there is some delay in representation. The delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to the above said bona fide reason. By condoning the representation delay no harm or prejudice will be caused to the respondents.
2. From the above averments, it is clear that the registry had returned the papers on 23.11.2000. The defects pointed out by the registry are:
(i) the provision of law not given; and
(ii) batta to be filed with full address of the respondents;
Further, the counsel has been asked to state as to how the appeal is in time.
3. To comply with these defects, ten days time was also granted. In spite of it, The papers were not represented within the time granted by the registry. However, the same were represented on 11.4.2001. As per the averments made in the affidavit, it is clear that only when the petitioner asked the counsel to inform the stage of the matter, the counsel searched for the bundle, traced out and represented the same on 11.4.2001.
4. When it is the duty of the counsel to comply with the defects pointed out by the registry, the non-representation of the papers within the time is nothing but the negligence on the part of the counsel. Even for representation of the papers if the party has to ask the counsel and thereafter the counsel has to make the search and trace out the papers in order to represent the same, I am of the view, that the interests of the 'pay master' have not been taken care of properly, since this is nothing short of a negligence on the part of the counsel in not representing the papers within the time. Whatever the right accrued because of this delay to the respondents cannot be lightly treated. Further, the counsel did not even care to file a supporting affidavit as to how the delay has occurred in the representation. Hence, I do not find any reason to condone the delay in representation.
5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.