C.R No.2691 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : February 14, 2008 1. C.R No.2691 of 2007 2. C.R No.2692 of 2007 Wazir Singh vs Jog Raj CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA *** Present : Mr.Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** RAJIVE BHALLA,J (Oral) This order shall dispose of C.R Nos.2691 and 2692 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CR No.2691 of 2007. Suit No.31/2001, titled as Jog Raj vs Wazir Singh was decreed against the petitioner, vide judgment and decree, dated 23.9.2003. The appeal, impugning the said judgment and decree, was filed on 20.5.2006, after a delay of two years and eight months, and was accompanied by an application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay. The appellate Court, however, dismissed the application for condonation of delay. C.R No.2691 of 2007 ::2:: Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court should have condoned the delay, as sufficient cause was made out. The petitioner intended to prove that the pronotes and the receipts were forged and for that purpose wanted to submit the report of a handwriting expert. However, his counsel did not advise him accordingly. Another counsel advised him to file an appeal. It is submitted that as the petitioner was misled by the advice of his counsel, before the trial Court, there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal. The appellate Court, therefore, was not justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay, and consequently the appeal. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the application for condonation of delay lacks bona fide, as it was filed after the petitioner's objections were dismissed in the execution petition. After the suit was decreed, the respondent filed a petition for execution. The petitioner filed objections in opposition thereto. After the dismissal of the objections, the petitioner, in order to delay the execution of the decree, filed an appeal, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of two years and eight months. It is submitted that as the application for condonation of delay lacks bona fides and does not disclose any sufficient cause, the learned appellate Court rightly dismissed the same. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The appeal was filed after a delay of two years and eight months. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay does not disclose any cause as would enable this Court to hold that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal. The explanation C.R No.2691 of 2007 ::3:: put-forth by the petitioner that he was misled by his counsel in the trial Court appears to be inherently false. A contention raised by counsel for the respondent that the appeal was filed only after the objections were dismissed in the execution petition, though not available on record, appears to be the reason for delay. A defaulting applicant, though not required to explain each day's delay, must furnish a cogent, credible and bona fide explanation for delay. The explanation furnished that his counsel did not advise the petitioner to get the signatures compared from an expert, does not inspire confidence and, therefore, cannot be accepted more particularly when there is a delay of two years and eight months. In view of the absence of any cogent or bona fide explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, the learned appellate Court rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal. The revision petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) February 14, 2008. JUDGE `kk'