'••1],- •s;- HIGH COURT OF CHHATT SlnaieBench : Hon'ble Shrj Piaintiff Sahadas, S/o Vishram Das, aged 22 years, Caste-Panika, R/o Viliage Kumhari, P.S. Marwahi, Tahsi! Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) yersus Defsndants 2. Kartik Das, S/o Bagghu, aged about 52 years, Caste Panika, R/o Village Kumhari, P.S. Marwahi, Tahsi Marwahj, Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through Coliector Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Seeond ARpealynder Section_100 oftheCodeofCjvii Procedure, 1908 Present : Appeilant by Shri Dhirendra Mishra, iearned counsel. (Passed on 14 h day of November, 2007) Heard on I.A.No.1 for condonation of deiay of 41 days in fiiing this appeal. (2) Following grounds have been pressed in support of the application for condonation of deiay: (A) that the appellant is a rural and itiiterats petson,-,who is ignorant about law of limitation, (B) that the appeilant couid not contact his counsel for filing the appeal, and (C) the aoDellant did not knov^ about the iudament and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. (3) So far as ground (A) is concerned, ignorance of law of iimitation Is not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay, particularly when it is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant herein that the appetlant was represented by counse! in both the Courts below. In this view of the matter, ground (B) also does not constitute 'sufficient cause'. (4) So far as ground (C) is concerned, the application for condonation of d:^ay itself says that the appeilant had moved an application for certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree and the copy was dellvered on 30-06-2007. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the appe!lant did not know about the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. !n this view of the matter, no sufficient cause is made out for condonation of de!ay in nling the second appeal. (5) The application for condonation of delay, i.e., I.A.No.1 is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, the second appeai is also dismissed as barred by limitation. .! '" 1 Dil4i Raosaheb Deshroukh| v Judge i Gopal