RSA No. 4623 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:13.05.2011 RSA No. 4623 of 2010 (O&M) Siri Chand ...Appellant Vs. Sunder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** L.N.MITTAL, J (ORAL). CM No. 13710-C-2010 This is application by appellant for condonation of delay of 3 years 68 days in re-filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that after the paper book was returned by the registery with some objection, it was misplaced in the office of the counsel while shifting the office. Clerk of the counsel inadvertently put the paper book of this case in bundle of decided cases and the same could not be traced inspite of efforts. Ultimately, the paper book was found on 12.08.2010 in the bundle of decided cases and thereupon the appeal was re-filed resulting in the aforesaid delay. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant reiterated the averments made in the application. However, even if the said averments are taken at face value, the same do not constitute sufficient ground to condone RSA No. 4623 of 2010 (O&M) -2- long delay of more than 3 years and 2 months. These are only vague and general averments in the application which do not make out case for condonation of such long delay. It has not even been alleged as to when the counsel shifted his office. It has become standard excuse to seek condonation of such long delay to plead that the file of the case was misplaced in files of the admitted cases or in the files of decided cases. If such reason is accepted to condone such long delay, the law of limitation would become futile. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of more than 3 years 2 months in re-filing the appeal. Accordingly, application is dismissed. RSA No. 4623 of 2010 Since delay in re-filing the appeal has not been condoned, the appeal is liable to dismissal on this ground. However, even on merits, the appellant cannot succeed. This is the second appeal by plaintiff No. 1 after plaintiffs i.e. appellant and proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. I need not to go into the merits of this case because plaintiff No. 1 withdrew the suit on his behalf by making statement in the trial court on 02.12.1994. It is beyond comprehension as to how plaintiff No. 1 having withdrawn his suit in trial court could file first appeal or instant second appeal. RSA No. 4623 of 2010 (O&M) -3- In view of the aforesaid, it is manifest that the instant second appeal is not only meritless, but is also completely frivolous and misconceived and it is not even maintainable. In view of the aforesaid, the instant second appeal is dismissed in limine. (L.N.MITTAL) JUDGE May 13, 2011 divyanshi