IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 6999-C of 2011 in/and R.S.A. No. 2531 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 14, 2011 Haryana Urban Development Authority and others .. Appellants Vs. Raj Rani and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Mr. Sidharath Batra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.S. Bains, Advocate for the respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This regular second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.4.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants- defendants against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2001 passed by the trial court, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent was decreed. The appeal being delayed by 2945 days in filing and 369 days delay in re- filing, is accompanied by an applications for condonation of delay. Stated that the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 4.4.2002 was obtained but the record does not reveal if any such copy was obtained by the appellant. It is also alleged that the appellant had engaged Ms. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate on 17.5.2002 for filing the appeal and thereafter she was supplied with all the documents along with power of attorney. On 17.9.2002, a reminder was issued by the appellants to know about the status of the case. Again on 21.3.2003, a letter was written to the counsel to know about the fate of the case but no reply was received. The Law Officers of HUDA- appellant visited the office of the counsel on 3.10.2004, 4.11.2004, 1.12.2004 and then on 10.12.2004, but she did not intimate about the status of the case and kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Again, letters dated 2.11.2004, 10.12.2004 and 30.12.2004 were sent to the counsel but no reply was received. Thereafter, the counsel was again contacted on 12.1.2005, by the Law Officers of the R.S.A. No. 2531 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** appellant and it was told by the counsel that the appeal is pending in this Hon'ble Court but no stay has been granted. Again letter dated 1.2.2005 was sent to intimate the status of the appeal followed by the subsequent reminders dated 21.2.2005, 4.3.2005, 21.3.2005 and 4.4.2005, but to no response. The concerned officials also visited the office of the counsel on 11.3.2005, 23.3.2005, 20.4.2005 and finally vide letter dated 6.5.2005, Ms. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate for the appellant informed that regular second appeal was filed in this court on 10.7.2002, but the same was not entertained and she also supplied the number of filing as 69635 dated 10.7.2002. The learned counsel was requested to supply the necessary documents vide letter dated 6.5.2005 which was delivered to her on 9.5.2005. During this period, the execution notice was received and the concerned officials of the appellant again contacted the counsel on 19.5.2005 and 26.5.2005, to know the status of the appeal, but the counsel was found out of station. The counsel then vide letter dated 6.7.2005 informed that the appeal was filed on 10.7.2002 and the filing number is 60635 dated 10.7.2002 and she further stated that the appeal was likely to come up for hearing in the next week, but thereafter the counsel did not inform about the status of the appeal to the applicant- appellant. The counsel was again sent a reminder on 27.11.2006 but to no response. She was again contacted on 9.12.2006, but again no reply was sent. The learned counsel then requested vide letter dated 8.5.2008, 10.6.2008, 1.9.2008 and 15.9.2008, but she again did not reply. Again she was contacted personally by the concerned officials on 28.7.2008, 30.7.2008, 1.8.2008 and finally on 6.8.2008, but she verbally informed that her file was not traceable. Thereafter, the Estate Officer took up the matter with the Legal Cell, Head Quarter vide letter dated 16.10.2008. The Legal Cell, HQ then sought certain information and the same was supplied. Then after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Legal Cell, HQ vide letter dated 5.5.2009 decided to engage Mr. Sidharath Batra, Advocate to prosecute the appeal filed by the appellants through Ms. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate. Mr. Sidharath Batra, Advocate was supplied with the file number and the date of filing as intimated by Ms. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate. In the meanwhile, it was decided by the competent authority to take appropriate R.S.A. No. 2531 of 2011 (O&M) -3- *** action against Ms. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate and accordingly a complaint was filed before the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh for providing deficient legal services. Thereafter, it was decided to file regular second appeal knowing that no such appeal was pending and as such the instant first regular second appeal was filed on 27.4.2010 and it was re-filed on 31.5.2011 and again on 1.6.2011. The record reveals that even after confirmation about the fact that Ms. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate had not filed appeal up to 15.4.2010, the appellant kept on sleeping over the matter till 27.4.2011 and the excuse made by the appellants qua that fact is that they continued waiting for completion of formalities to be completed by the authorities regarding approval to file the appeal. It appears that the appellants are taking the courts for a ride. Even after 15.4.2010, if they were interested in filing the regular second appeal, then they would have dealt with the matter on war footing and filed the appeal forthwith. Even otherwise, no affidavit of the employees of the appellants, who had contacted the counsel has been filed in order to explain this nine years delay in filing the appeal. The explanation filed by the appellants is totally incorrect and rather a blatant lie. As a matter of fact, it appears that the appellants having lost the case before the two courts below did not prefer to file the appeal. However, they filed this belated appeal on flimsy grounds to condone the delay of 2945 days in filing and 369 days in re-filing the appeal in order to avoid the operation of the judgment. Resultantly, the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal are dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also fails. November 14, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge