IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. Nos.6650-51-CI of 2011 in/and RFA No.2858 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.11.2011 Manohar Lal -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is landowner’s appeal challenging the impugned award of the reference Court on the ground that market value of the acquired land in question has been determined at a lower rate. There is delay of 3456 days in filing and 59 days in refiling this appeal. Application for condoning the aforesaid delay has also been filed along with this appeal. The relevant averments made in the application for condoning the said delay in filing this appeal reads thus:- “1. That the present appeal is being filed before this Hon’ble Court and the other Regular First Appeals against the impugned award of Addl.Distt. Judge, Ambala dated 20.12.2000 are still pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court. RFA No.2858 of 2011 2. That in fact prior to the filing of the present appeal, the appellants got filed the appeal through another counsel Sh. R.K. Arora on 6.5.2002. At that point of time also, the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and the registry raised the objection on 13.8.2002. 3. That the appellant came to know about the case that it has not been re-filed, therefore, he took the case file from the above said counsel. However, the total case file was returned by the counsel excluding the power of attorney. 4. That the brief of the said appeal was handed over to the undersigned for re-filing the same before this Hon’ble Court. The appeal was re- filed on 25.2.2005 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1431 days. The registry of the Hon’ble High Court still raised objections as under:- i) How power of attorney filed on 22.2.2005 - Application U/s 149 CPC be filed with affidavit. The objection raised by the Registry was removed and the case was re-filed on 6.7.2005. The registry while passing the said filed appeal raised objection on 16.7.2005 as under:- i) No. of delay days is not correct in both C.Ms. ii) Previous power of attorney should be filed. iii) No objection may be obtained. 5. That after return of the said appeal to the undersigned, it was informed to the client, however, the appellant could not respond to the 2 RFA No.2858 of 2011 call of the undersigned, due to unavoidable reasons, i.e. old age and non-availability of the funds. Despite various reminders to the appellant, he ultimately sought the opinion as to what could be the solution in the given circumstances. Therefore, it is decided to file the fresh appeal itself by making an application for condonation of delay of total days right from the days when it was firstly instituted. 6. That since various RFAs bearing No.630 of 2001, 631 to 645 and 2205 to 2209 of 2001, 217 to 219 of 2002 and 809 of 2002 are still pending against the impugned award. The delay occurred in the present is not intentional rather it is bonafide on account of unavoidable reasons and due to lack of information between the earlier counsel and the appellant. The appellant is a poor man and it is difficult for him to make good of his daily livelihood. If the delay is condoned, justice would be rendered to the appellant. A full set of the earlier draft of appeal in original is being filed before this Hon’ble Court. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the application may kindly be accepted and condonation of delay of 3456 days may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.” A perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that according to the appellant, he had engaged Shri R.K. Arora, Advocate in the first instance to file this appeal and the instant appeal was filed on 6.5.2002 through him which was returned by 3 RFA No.2858 of 2011 the registry after raising some objections. However, the same was not refiled and thereafter, the brief was taken from him and the present counsel representing the appellant was engaged, who refiled the appeal on 25.2.2005 but the registry again raised certain objections and thereafter, the appeal could be refiled only on 7.9.2010. However, the aforesaid averments made by the appellant are totally false and in fact misleading. A perusal of the opening sheet of the original paper book of the appeal filed by Shri R.K. Arora, Advocate (which is available on file at page 43) clearly depicts that the said appeal was prepared and filed by Shri R.K. Arora, Shri Surinder Mohan Sharma (the counsel representing the appellant presently) and Shri B.R. Rana, Advocates. Not only this, the memo of parties of the original paper book, at page No.46, if seen by naked eyes, clearly depicts that an effort has been made to remove the names and signatures of S/Sh. Surinder Mohan Sharma and B.R. Rana, Advocates from the memo of parties by applying white fluid. Thus, the appellant has approached this Court by making a false averments and has also tried to mislead the Court, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief, much less of condoning such a huge delay. Thus, prayer for condoning the delay of 3456 days in filing this appeal is rejected. 4 RFA No.2858 of 2011 Since the prayer for condonation of delay has not been accepted, the appeal being time barred is also dismissed. In view of dismissal of application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal, no other application survives. November 03, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 5