RSA No.764 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.M.Nos.2136-C,2138-C,2139-C of 2010 and RSA No.764 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.9.2010 Smt.Mohinder Kaur ...Appellant vs Subhash Chander ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present: Mr. O.P.Kamboj, Advocate, for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of the agreement in question was decreed. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of the agreement in question was contested by the appellant by denying the execution of the aforesaid agreement and further taking a stand that plaintiff-respondent had obtained the signatures of the appellant on blank papers as security and thereafter converted the said papers into an agreement to sell. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence held that the agreement to sell in question stood duly proved and the appellant failed to prove her assertion that her thumb impressions were taken on the blank stamp papers. Still not satisfied the defendant has filed the present appeal. RSA No.764 of 2010 2 The appeal is hopelessly time barred. This appeal was initially filed on 4.10.2007 i.e. after a delay of 148 days after the expiry of the limitation period. Not only this, while filing this appeal the appellant had not affixed the ad valorem court fee which was required to be affixed on the memorandum of appeal. The ad valorem court fee was affixed by the appellant after a period of 579 days. Not only this, after filing this appeal initially on 4.10.2007, the same was returned by the Registry on 5.10.2007 for rectification of the objections. However, the appeal was refiled only on 2.4.2009 which was again returned vide note dated 4.4.2009 raising certain objections. The appeal was re-filed and thereafter again it was returned vide note dated 7.5.2009. Thereafter, the appeal was finally refiled on 16.2.2010. In this manner, the appeal has been refiled after a period of 911 days. The appellant has filed applications for condonation of delay of 579 days in making up the deficiency in the court fee and condonation of delay of 148 in filing the appeal and condonation of delay of 911 days in re-filing this appeal vide C.M.Nos.2136-C,2138-C and 2139-C of 2010 respectively. In the application for condonation of delay of 148 days i in filing this appeal it has been stated that appellant had instructed the clerk of his counsel in the trial Court to obtain the certified copies of the judgment and decree and thereafter to inform him. After obtaining copy of the judgment and decree of the trial court the clerk of the counsel did not inform him and he visited the trial court in the last week of September 2007 only then the Clerk of his counsel told him that he had obtained the certified copies and for this reason the delay of 148 days in filing this appeal had been caused. The aforesaid plea of the appellant has not been substantiated RSA No.764 of 2010 3 by placing on record any affidavit or other correspondence of the clerk/counsel of the appellant who was representing him in the trial Court. In the absence of any evidence, the bald statement of the appellant cannot be accepted. Not only this, in the application under section 149 CPC for condonation of delay in making up the deficiency in court fee, the appellant has submitted that less court fee was affixed on the date of filing the appeal due to the reason that the court fee was not available with the stamp vendors. The aforesaid plea cannot be accepted in any manner as court fee was affixed on the appeal after a delay of 579 days. It cannot be accepted that there was no court fee with the stamp vendors for such a long period. Even the appellant has failed to explain the delay of 911 days in re-filing this appeal. The only ground taken by him to explain the inordinate delay in refiling this appeal is that there were talks of compromise between the parties. However, there is not an iota of evidence to support the aforesaid assertion of the appellant. It may also be noticed that on 18.2.2010 and 19.5.2010 before this Court also, adjournment was sought on the ground of compromise between the parties. However, no such compromise has been placed on record before this Court. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, as narrated above, it is crystal clear that the appellant has failed to establish sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing this appeal as well as making up the deficiency in court fee and condonation of delay in refiling this appeal. In the aforesaid view of the matter, all these applications which are based on false pleas, are rejected. A person who does not approach the Court with clean hands and without true facts, is not entitled to discretionary relief. RSA No.764 of 2010 4 Even on merits, both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that agreement in question stood proved and the appellant has failed to prove that her signatures were taken on blank papers. In this view of the matter, even on merits, no interference is called for in this appeal. Consequently, all the aforesaid applications as well as the Regular Second Appeal are dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge September 16, 2010 rk