1 28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 1034/2010 & Crl.M.C.No.3708/2010 KLMEHTA Applicant Through Mr. Harsh Jaidka, Advocate. VersusO OP KKREJA Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE iVIR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER % 06.04.2010 The impugned order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate is dated 15*^ September, 2006. The appeal filed by the applicant before the AdditionalSessionsJudge was dismissedon 16^^ November,2006 on the ground that It not maintainable. The applicant thereafter remained quiet for more than 3 years and has filed the petition with the present ^ applicationfor condonationof delayon or about 5^"^ March,2010. 2. In the application for condonation of delay vague averments have been made that the applicant had entrusted the case to the counsel, who in turn entrusted the same to his junior colleague. The said explanation a. or reason is notJ|sufflcientcauseorjustificationfor the long delayofthree years. The application for condonation of delay does not state what steps were taken by the applicant from 2006 till 2009 to ensure that the Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified tf 4 i appeal/petition was filed. It is alleged that file was given to one Mr.Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate, who suffered brain hemorrhageon 17^"^ February, 2009 and was hospitalized. Again the applicant has not explained the gap between March/April, 2009 till the present appeal/petitionwas filed on 5^*^ March, 2010. It is apparent that the applicantlost interest and had stopped pursuingthe case. Now, suddenly after more than 3 years the applicant has filed the present appeal/petition along with applicationfor condonationof delay.There is no ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 1— SANJIVKHANNAJ. APRIL 06, 2010 MA/P \ \