RSA No.567 of 2011 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.567 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 03.02.2011. Smt. Subhash Rani and others .....Appellants Versus Satish Sharma and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. N.P. S. Mann, Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.1580-C of 2011 This is application for condonation of delay of 931 days in filing the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellants and perused the case file. Ground pleaded in the application for condonation of delay is mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application which is reproduced hereunder:- “That the appellant was not aware about the technicalities of law and about the limitation for filing the appeal. In this process, there is delay of 931 days in filing the appeal has occurred.” A bare perusal of the aforesaid averment would reveal that there is no ground much less sufficient ground for condonation of any delay much less long delay of more than 2 ½ years in filing the appeal. It is alleged that appellant was not aware about the technicalities of law and about the limitation period for filing the appeal. However, the appellants were represented by counsel in the trial Court as well as in the lower appellate Court. First appeal was filed well within limitation period. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that appellants were not aware about RSA No.567 of 2011 (O & M) -2- the technicalities of law and about the limitation period for filing the appeal. The appellants were availing of the services of a Lawyer in the trial Court as well as in the lower appellate Court. It is thus manifest that ground pleaded in the application for condonation of long delay of more than 2 ½ years is most frivolous and untenable. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the appellants contended that other litigation was pending regarding Will of Sushila Devi mother of the plaintiff and RSA in the said litigation has been decided on 25.01.2011 and immediately thereafter, the instant second appeal has been instituted. Obviously this cannot be a ground for not filing the instant second appeal within limitation period. The appellants could not have waited for decision of the other second appeal before filing the instant second appeal. The said ground sought to be pleaded by way of additional affidavit also cannot be accepted to condone the delay of more than 2 ½ years in filing the instant second appeal. On the contrary, no such ground has even been taken in the application. Moreover, the ground taken in the application belies the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the appellants. If such long delay of 2 ½ years is condoned without any ground much less sufficient ground, the law of limitation would be defeated completely. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that no ground for condoning the long delay of 931 days in filing the appeal is made out. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. Main Appeal. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. 03.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE