FAO 422-2008 Page 1 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM NO. 17463/2008 & FAO NO. 422/2008 Date of Decision: May 10, 2010 HARYANA STATE FEDERATION OF CONSUMER COOP WHOLESALES STORES LTD. ……Appellant through Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Advocate versus NCCF OF INDIA LTD AND ORS ……...... Respondent through Mr. J P Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Batra, Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred against the order of Additional District Judge Shri Paramjit Singh dated December 10, 2007. The appeal has been filed 335 days after the expiry of the period of limitation. Hence, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has also been filed. The only reason that has been assigned for not filing the appeal in time is that the counsel who was dealing with the case in the trial court was not given any notice with regard to the pronouncement of the impugned order dated December 10, 2007. The appellant has filed on record copy of the letter of the counsel FAO 422-2008 Page 2 dated August 5, 2008 whereby the appellant was informed by the counsel about the pronouncement of order dated December 10, 2007. The relevant part of the said letter reads as under : - `”It may be informed that I had not received any notice with regard to pronouncement of the order dated 10.12.2007. It is only on 18.7.2008 that on enquiry from the Court it was revealed that the Special petition has already been disposed of on 10.12.2007. Thereafter the application for obtaining certified copy of the order was made and the same was prepared on 2.8.2008 received by me on 5.8.2008.” It is common practice in the trial court that after arguments are heard in a matter, the judgment is either pronounced there and then or the court gives a date for pronouncement of order/judgment. The parties or their counsels are expected to find out about the judgment on that date and if they do not do so, they are themselves to blame. It will be seen from the relevant extract of the letter produced on the record that the counsel had taken the plea that he had not received any notice with regard to the pronouncement of the order dated December 10, 2007. Such a plea is not tenable as no notice is ever given to the counsels or the parties with regard to the pronouncement of orders. They have to find out themselves on the given date as to what is the outcome of the case. In this view of the matter, there is absolutely no force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the main reason for delay in filing the appeal was caused because of the counsel having not been informed about the pronouncement of the order dated December 10, 2007. There is no merit in the application. The FAO 422-2008 Page 3 same is dismissed and consequently the appeal is also dismissed being barred by time. REKHA SHARMA, J. MAY 10, 2010 PC..