R.F.A. No. 4031.2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 4031 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.3.2011 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation .. Appellant v. Ram Phal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. On 14.1.2011, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant had sought time to file better affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay of 396 days in filing the appeal. Today, fresh affidavit of Mr. Arvind Mehtani, Senior Town Planner, HSIIDC, Panchkula has been filed in court, which has been taken on record. In paragraph 2(a) thereof, it has been stated that a letter dated 8.3.2010 was received from Branch Office, Bawal on 11.11.2010 in the Head Office. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant- appellant submitted that the date of receipt is 11.3.2010 and not 11.11.2010, as has been mentioned in the affidavit. It was subsequent to the receipt of communication from the Branch Office that the matter was examined in the Head Office and after receipt of relevant documents, the same were forwarded to the counsel on 16.4.2010 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 5.8.2010. With the aforesaid facts, delay of 396 days in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The date of award of the learned court below is 6.4.2009. There is no reason available on record as to why the Branch Office sent the information about the decision of the case to R.F.A. No. 4031.2010 [2] the Head Office for the first time on 8.3.2010, which was admittedly received in the Head Office on 11.3.2010, but still thereafter as well, it took five months to file the appeal. From the said facts, it is established that the applicant-appellant was totally casual. Accordingly, I do not find any ground is made out for condoning the delay. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.3.2011 mk