RSA No. 1800 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1800 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 26, 2011 Kuldeep Singh ...... Appellant Versus Nirmal Singh and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present : Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for LRs of respondent No.1. **** L.N. Mittal, J (Oral) C.M. No.5185-C of 2007 This is application by appellant for condonation of delay of 448 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that on enquiry, counsel for the applicant-appellant in the lower Appellate Court kept on telling that the first appeal was still pending, but thereafter applicant- appellant enquired from some other Munshi (Clerk of some other Advocate) and learnt that the appeal had been decided by the lower Appellate Court. Thereafter, applicant-appellant applied for copy of the order of the lower Appellate Court and after receiving the same, applicant-appellant contacted his counsel in the High Court who wanted brief of the lower courts including evidence recorded in the trial Court. The applicant-appellant again RSA No. 1800 of 2007 (O&M) 2 went to his counsel at District Courts and asked for the brief, but the counsel did not give the brief on one pretext or the other and after receiving the brief, the applicant-appellant filed the instant second appeal, resulting in delay of 448 days in filing the same. The application has been opposed by legal representatives (LRs) of respondent No.1 by filing reply. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant reiterated the averments made in the application. Learned counsel for LRs of respondent No.1, on the other hand, contended that no sufficient ground has been explained for condoning such long delay. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Even if averments made in the application are taken at face value, the same do not constitute sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of 448 days i.e. almost 15 months. Perusal of the file reveals that application for obtaining certified copy of judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court was moved on 13.4.2006 and the copies were delivered on 17.4.2006. However, the instant appeal was filed on 19.1.2007 i.e. more than 9 months after taking delivery of certified copies of judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. Even if the averments made in the application are assumed to be correct, the aforesaid delay of more than 9 months in filing the appeal even after obtaining certified copies of judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is practically not explained at all. There is only vague and general averment that counsel in the District Courts did not give brief of the case to the applicant-appellant. Such long delay cannot be condoned on such vague, general and specious ground. Averments in the application do RSA No. 1800 of 2007 (O&M) 3 not explain the long delay in satisfactory manner. If such long delay is condoned without any sufficient ground, the law of limitation would be rendered infructuous. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no sufficient ground to condone the long delay of 448 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. RSA No. 1800 of 2007 The appeal is dismissed as time barred. (L.N. Mittal) Judge May 26, 2011 Anand