ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Member
1. By this application, the applicants have pleaded for condonation of delay of 61 days in filing the appeal. The applicants received the impugned order on 17.1.1990 and the appeal has been received in the Registry on 18.6.1990.
2. Shri K. Narayanan, the learned Counsel for the applicants pleaded that Shri Sivasubramaniam, Managing Partner of the applicants Co. has filed an affidavit stating that due to Hypertensive Heart disease, he could not file the appeal within the period of three months and after recovery filed the appeal on 16.6.1990. In support of his plea, a Medical Certificate has been produced. The matter had come up earlier for hearing when the Counsel for the applicants was asked to file back-up evidence such as prescription for the medical treatment or other evidence regarding the person’s incapacity that he was in such a position that he could not prefer the appeal during the period between 16.2.1990 and 15.6.1990 covered by the Medical Certificate. The learned Counsel has produced a letter sent by Shri Sivasubramanian, Managing Partner of the firm wherein he has stated there was nobody authorised to sign important documents and that the nature of the disease he was suffering was such that it did not prevent the limited physical activities like signing the documents etc. and that Managing Partner had been signing important documents and the routine affairs of the firm were being attended to by the Manager. It has been pleaded that the Manager did not bring to the notice of the Managing Partner the order of the lower court. He has pleaded that the Medical certificate explains the state of health of the Managing. It has been pleaded that the Manager Partner and he had been advised complete rest The learned Counsel pleaded that in the face of this, the plea for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal may be accepted. He has further pleaded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there could not be any pedantic approach in the matter of condonation of delay and in the interests of justice a liberal view may be taken in the matter. He cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. and in the case of Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Major Daljit Singh and Ors. .
3. Shri R. Subramanian, the learned D.R. for the Department pleaded that the applicants are a partnership concern and some one else could have been authorised to sign the papers on behalf of the firm and it is not as if that the day-to-day affairs of the firm were not being attended to during the period of the sickness of the Managing Partner.
4. I observe that the delay in preferring the appeal is 61 days and this delay is sought to be explained by the Managing Partner’s sickness and a Medical certificate in support of the same has been produced. It is seen that the Medical Certificate has been issued by a Specialist-Consultant Psychiatrist and the applicant was stated to be in a condition which was “heart disease” and in the normal course even if the disease warranted bed-rest the applicant would have been consulting a Heart Specialist and not a Psychiatrist. No back-up evidence regarding the nature of the treatment received by the applicant has been produced to probabilise the plea of sickness. The certificate produced does not inspire any confidence for its acceptance regarding the incapacity of the Managing Partner. In any case the applicants firm is a partnership concern and it is not the plea that the Managing Partner alone has been signing all the papers in terms of the partnership deed. It is not the plea of the applicants that the day-to-day affairs of the firm were not being attended to by anybody else. The only plea taken is that the Managing Partner alone was signing the important papers. From the letter produced by the Managing Partner, it is seen that the Manager was looking after the affairs of the firm. If there was need the. Manager could have been authorised to sign the papers. It is not the plea of the applicants that the Managing Partner was in such a state of health that he could not visualise or act or was not in a position to arrange to execute for the purpose of delegation the authority during the stated period of rest of the Managing Partner. On the contrary, the Managing Partner was attending to the signing of important documents. The Managing Partner, according to the plea taken was advised rest from 16.2.1990. The order of the lower authority was received by the applicants on 17.1.1990 and since the Managing Partner had been signing and attending to important documents, this would have been brought to his notice. There is nothing on record to show that he had given any instruction to the staff regarding this order for any follow-up action before his sickness. The facts of this case are distinguishable from the case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the applicants inasmuch as the Supreme Court has held that considerations for condonation of delay have to be in the light of the facts of each case. In the present case, as I have observed, the plea of incapacity of the Managing Partner has not been probabilised. The delay if any can be attributed only due to the negligence on the part of the applicants in regard to the requirements of law. The law helps the diligent and not the negligent. The reason given that the applicants that due to sickness of the Managing Director/Partner they could not file the appeal, as discussed above, is not acceptable. In view of the above, I hold that sufficient cause for condonation of delay has not been shown by the applicants. The application is therefore dismissed.
5. Inasmuch as the delay has not been condoned, the appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
(Pronounced in the open Court).