IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. 96/2010 Decided on:26.2.2011 _____________________________________________ Santokh Singh and others. …Appellants. Versus Pawan Kumar and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). CMP (M) No. 215/2010 There is delay of 653 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal. Reasons assigned for condonation of delay are neither cogent nor convincing. The judgment was pronounced by the learned first Appellate Court on 6.2.2008. Copy of the same was applied on 4.4.2008. The same was received on 22.4.2008. It cannot be believed, as averred in the application, that the file was misplaced. It is settled law by now that liberal approach has to be adopted by the Courts 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 while considering the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, it is equally settled that stricter approach is required where there is inordinate delay, as is in the instant case. Accordingly, there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed. RSA No. 96/2010 In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the Regular Second Appeal is also dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 26.2.2011 *awasthi*