^•^:, HJGHCOURTOFCHHATTSSGARHATBILASPUR SinaIeBench : Hon'bleShriDilioRaosahebDe^hnriulth. SecoridADbea}No.509of2007 APPELLANT fDEFENDANTNO.Sy Krishna S/o Ramnarayan, aged abpyt 62 years, r/o Behind Tara Engineering, Cbakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsji Rajgarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS fPLAJNTSFn DefendantNo.1 DefendantNo.2 1. 2. 3. \^rsus Champa Bai, d/o abouiSO years Gopal Singh S/o about55years Dhan Singh, aged Ram Singh, aged M6mo ofSecondADDealuriderSeGfjon106olltheCbdeofCivtl Procedure.1908 Present Shri A.V. Shridhar, counsei for the appellant. Ganeshi Bai, widJow of Daulatram, aged about 60 yeaifs All r/o Behind Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.) ]Tara Engjneering, r, Raigarh, Tahsil ORALORDER (Passed on 3ro December, 2007) Heard on I.A. No.01^007 whjch is an application for condonationofdelay in filing the appeal. ! 2. The judgment and decree of the triai Co^^^ 31-01^0(MinCh/iJSuitNo. 138^002. CiviiAppealNo.7-^ was dismissedon 14.7.2005. SecondAppeal|waspreferredon 27-11^007 aiongwithan applicatiori underSection 5 ofth& ActforcondonatiQnofdel^ofTSZdaYsinfilingthe^^ 3. Itis notindisputethat^ in both the Courts below w4iich necorded a eoncu(|rent findjrig agajnst theappeilant/defendantNo.S.ThisappeaJisfiledafterad days beypnd the^r^nbed period pf limitatjon. In the application,^ ''X— f I^Y has been mentioned that at the behest of the counsel, the appellant handed over the certified copy of the judgment^^a Courts below to qne Ranjeet Singh Tha^^ Nowherehas it been mentibned asto when thiswasdone. 4. Leamed counsel forthe appellant submjtted thatRanjeetSingh Thakur is not^aQ^Mvocate. It is stated that said Ranjeet Singh Thakur had given the papers to Shri B.R. Ghosh , Advocate. The appellant has further mentioned in the application that despite his visiting Bjlaspur in the year 2005 and 2006, he did not personally contact Shri B.R. Ghosh, Advocate. At a very late stage when dunng execution of the judgment and decree started and the appjication for staying the execution was dismissed by the executing Cjourt, the appeilant contacted Shrj B.R.Ghosh, Advocate on 20-10-2007 who told him that he had returned all the documents tosaid RanjeetSingh Thakur. 5. The appellant has thus not shown any sufficient explanation for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The appeal is hopelessly barred by iimitetion. The jaffidavit of Ranjeet Singh Thakuror Shri B.R. Ghosh, Advocate has aiso not been filed. It is beyond comprehension that although.the appeilantwas represented by counsel in both the Courts beiow he would hand over the papers to Ranjeet Singh Thakur, a strangerfor filingan appeal before the High Court. 6. !n thisview ofthe matter, there being no sufficientcause for condonation of delay, the application for condonafion of delay in filing this appeal is dismissed. As a conseqyence theneof, the appeal atso stands dismissed as barred bylimitation. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Kw 'K.