f/"^ I 1S®-^ 8 ^s^ ^ HIGH COURT OE* CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR secoad AppeaiNo. 25072011 Sint. Ramin Bai, aged about 30 years, W/o Dharmendra Kumar Taadon, D/o Nazru Satnami, R/o ViUage Lakhapuri, Tahsfl Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Presenfiy residing at Ambala Caay:, Haryaaa. APPELLANT PLAINTIFF RESPQNDENTS DEFENDANTS VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. a. 6. Nazi-u, S/o Late Mahetaru Satnaini, aged about 64 years, Kishan Kumar, S/o Nazru Satnanai, aged about 35 years, Saajay Kuxnar, S/o Nazru Sataaaii, aged about 30 years, Ku. SaguDa, D/o Nazru Sataami, aged about 25 years, Chaad Bai, W/o Nazru Sataami, aged about 60 years, AU R/o ViUage Barbaspur, Police Station Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt, Kabirdham (C.G.). State of Chhattisgrh, Through fhe Coflector, Kabirdhatu. SECOND APPBAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. (SB :Koa'Me BSs. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advooate for the appellant. Respondents not noticed. ORAL- JUDGEMBNT (Passed on 04/08/2011) Heard on I.A. No. 1 application for condoaation of delay-in fiUag the second appeal and also heard on adinission. Present second appeal has been preferred after 37 days ofits luaitation. Order impugned aad copy of fhe judginent and decree of the trial Court perused. As perjudgment aad decree dated 26/2/2010 passed by Pirst Civil Judge C]ass-l, Kabiidham (Kawardha) C.G.. in CivU Suit No. 17-A/2008 present appeUaat/plaiatiff had filed suit for declaratioa, partition aiid possession ia fhe year 2007 but reasons best known to the appeUaut/plauitiff, she has not produced herself for cross examiuation '^s^ ^S^&A^ •f /f ~4 i & 1 '£ 'a . aad case was adjoumed for 5 tim.es even subject to payiaent of cost. finaUy suitwas dismissed on 26/2/20l0. Present appeUaat has filed first appeal before fhe District Judge, Kabh-dham on 17/8/l0 after more than. 5 Baonfhs of such judgmeut aad decree aad even. after obtaiaiug certi&ed copy of fhe judgnient and decree on 3/7/10 she has filed fhe appeal on 17/8/ 10 same was dismissed on fhe ground of lunitation on 11/3/11 again ia stead of fiting second appeal withiu stipulated period of 90 days she has fUed fhis appeal after 127 days and appeal is barrcd by 37 days. These all conduct of fhe appeUant appears fhat fhis is a luxurious Utigation for fhe appeUant and is not serious for her case suice its filiag and'evt.^ a>age, she has filed appeal after prescribed period of limitation, I do not find aay ground for condonation of delay in filing ftie second appeal or any inerits in fhe second appeal therefore, I.A. No. 1 is disiiiissed. Consequently, second appeal is also disinissed at ftie stage of inotion itsetf. No order as to costs. JUDGE <4-