ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The application for condonation of delay was taken up and considered. The impugned Order was passed on 18-1-2002 and issued on 30-1-2002. The appellant, in E.A. 3 form, has stated that the order was communicated to them on 1-3-2002. The appeal has been filed on 31-10-2002 much beyond the period of limitation. The appeal is ought to have been filed before 1-6-2002. The appellant’s contention is that their landlord had defaulted in making the payment to KSFC. Therefore, the KSFC has taken possession of the premises on 10-1-2002 and as a result, they were not in a position to conduct their business. They were forced to approach the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2183/2002 and the owner of the premises did not comply with the terms of the High Court Order and hence, they were forced to file a Contempt Petition. Their simple explanation is, as the records were inside the industrial shed, they were not in a position to prepare the appeal in time.
2. We have heard learned Advocate Shri J.A. Babu and learned JCDR Smt. Shoba L. Chary.
3. The learned Counsel submits that the delay may please be condoned in view of the fact that the appellants did not have the records with them. The learned JCDR submits that it is not the case of the appellants that they did not have the copy of the impugned order and submits that the delay has not been explained. Since negligence is patent on record she prays for dismissal.
4. On a careful consideration, it is seen from the affidavit of one Mr. Sampath that the premises was seized by KSFC on 10-1-2002. The copy of the impugned order has been communicated to them on 1-3-2002, much after the premises was seized by KSFC. The appellants were only required to have prepared a few grounds against the impugned order and should have filed the appeal in time. There is no explanation given at all for the delay in not filing the appeal in time. They have been pursuing the remedy against the landlord, but at the same time, they had to have taken care to file the present appeal in time. It is also seen that the appellants have been taking adjournments from last two years on one pretext or the other. The explanation given is not acceptable as the negligence is patent on record. There is no ground to condone the delay. As such, the application is rejected and as a consequence, the appeal is also dismissed.