IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2502 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 31 st May, 2011 Haryana Urban Development Authority & another ….Appellants Versus Jagdish Lal & others ….Respondents CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL PRESENT : Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the applicant-appellants. * * * * * L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No.6848-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.6849-C of 2011 This is application by appellants (Haryana Urban Development Authority and its Estate Officer) for condonation of delay of 1139 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that lower appellate court decided the first appeal on 03.01.2008 but counsel for the appellants in the lower court did not intimate the same to the appellants. Executing court issued warrant of attachment of property of the appellants in August, 2010 and thereupon appellants made efforts to know the status of the appeal but RSA No.2502 of 2011 (O&M) nothing was heard from the counsel. Then status of the appeal was got checked from the court and it was found that the first appeal had been dismissed in the year 2008. Thereupon certified copy of judgment and decree was applied for and was received on 29.11.2010. The matter was then examined at various levels and ultimately the appeal was filed on 16.05.2011. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellants reiterated the averments made in the application. However, even if the said averments are taken at face value, the same do not make out any ground, much less sufficient ground, for condoning the long delay of 1139 days i.e. more than three years and one month. It is first alleged that counsel for the appellants in the lower appellate court did not intimate the status of the first appeal to the appellants. However, it was the duty of the appellants to have remained in touch with their counsel and not vice versa. In addition to it, appellants depute an official called pairokar who looks after the proceedings in the court cases and assists the counsel and it was his duty to have enquired from the counsel and to have known from the court that the appeal had been decided on 03.01.2008. It is alleged in the application that proceedings for fixing responsibility for the delay were also initiated. However, the application is silent as to what was the result of the said proceedings. It is then alleged in the application that executing court issued warrant of attachment of the property of appellants in August, 2010 and -2- RSA No.2502 of 2011 (O&M) thereupon the appellants started moving to know fate of their first appeal. However, ordinarily before issuing warrant of attachment, executing court must have issued notice of the execution petition to the appellants (judgment debtors). Moreover, in the instant case, it appears that there was no occasion for the executing court to issue warrant of attachment as action of the defendants in demanding penalty and compound interest @ 18% per annum was held illegal and they were held entitled to simple interest @ 10 % per annum. Moreover, the alleged warrant of attachment of the property of the appellants has also not been placed on record in support of the averments made in the application. In addition to the aforesaid, even after learning of the attachment warrant in August, 2010, the appellants did not move swiftly and with care and caution. They continued to crawl at snail’s pace even thereafter. Warrant of attachment was allegedly issued by the executing court in August, 2010, but application for obtaining certified copy of judgment and decree of the lower appellate court was moved on 20.11.2010. The copy was prepared on 23.11.2010 and delivery was taken on 27.11.2010. Thus the application itself for obtaining copy was moved three months after the appellants had learnt of the dismissal of their first appeal. Even thereafter, the appeal was not filed with promptness. On the other hand, the appeal was filed on 16.05.2011. Thus there has been long delay even after the appellants allegedly came to know of the decision of the first appeal. The said delay is not satisfactorily explained by vague and general assertion about consideration of the matter at different levels. -3- RSA No.2502 of 2011 (O&M) For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the instant application for condonation of long delay of more than three years one month in filing the appeal is completely meritless and frivolous. The said long delay is not explained much less in a satisfactory manner. If such long delay is condoned on such vague, general and specious averments, the very purpose of prescribing limitation period would be frustrated and law of limitation would be rendered infructuous. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the instant application for condonation of delay of 1139 days in filing the appeal is dismissed being meritless. Main Appeal: The appeal is dismissed as time barred. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 31st May, 2011 ‘raj’ -4-