FAO No. 489 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 489 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.03.2010 Deep Chand ....Appellant Versus Smt. Babita Rani and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) CM No. 2887-CII of 2010 This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been moved for condoning the delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal. The ground taken for condonation of delay is, that claimant Smt. Babita Rani was not the widow of the deceased, nor other claimants were born out of the wedlock of Smt. Babita Rani with the deceased. After passing of the award, the applicant-appellant chose not to pay the compensation awarded. When the execution was taken out, an attempt was made, to avoid the liability by moving an application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to contest the right of the claimants, to claim compensation by denying their relationship with the deceased. The application though not competent was entertained, and the parties were allowed to lead evidence. On appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the learned FAO No. 489 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Tribunal recorded a finding, that the claimants were widow and daughters of the deceased, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The award was passed on 31.10.2005. The application under Section 151/152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for correction of the award, though not competent in law, was moved on 8.3.2006 i.e. after expiry of the limitation period to file the appeal. The learned Tribunal still entertained the said application, as referred to above, and found no merit in the contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. The case set up for condonation of delay of 1426 days is, that it was only at the time of challenging the order passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 151/152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the applicant came to know, that the award was not challenged in this Court. Therefore, there occurred a delay of 1426 days in filing the present appeal. The pleading in the application itself shows that the applicant- appellant was well aware of the award passed and had taken every step to avoid his liability, even taking false plea. The poor claimants who lost their bread-winner have not been paid, by raising one or other objections. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, that criminal complaint was also filed against the claimants, which was thereafter, withdrawn and the appellant thereafter paid part of the compensation, though there is no proof in support of this payment. FAO No. 489 of 2010 (O&M) -3- The averments and the conduct of the applicant do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the huge delay of 1426 days in filing the appeal. Dismissed. FAO No. 489 of 2010 and CM No. 2888-CII of 2010 Dismissed as time barred. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 22, 2010 R.S.