FAO No.3058 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3058 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: September 17, 2009. Saroj & Anr. ...Appellant(s) v. Narinder Singh @ Jiwan & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Ruminderjit Singh, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants. Shri Saurabh Garg, Advocate for Shri K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. Shri Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.5. ORDER Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): CM No.17472-CII of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 9 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CM No.17471-CII of 2009 This is an application for condonation of delay of 1355 days in re-filing this appeal on the ground that the Clerk of the Counsel for the appellants had put the appeal papers in some other brief and when the Office record of the counsel for the appellant was set in order, the same were found lying in some other brief and thereafter the appeal was re-filed and that the delay caused in re-filing this appeal was bona fide and unintentional. FAO No.3058 of 2008 -: 2 :- The aforesaid application has been contested by the respondent- insurance company submitting that there is no valid ground for condonation of delay in re-filing and from the facts as given in the application for condonation of delay in re-filing, it is clearly established that the applicant- appellant did not take initiative to remove the objections for years together and was negligent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In Krishan Dev Dhiman v. Mahesh Bhatia, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 229, this Court, after discussing the provisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules & Orders Volume 5, Chapter 1, Part 1, has held that delay can be condoned only where there is a sufficient cause and the same cannot be condoned on the ground of compassion or equitable considerations or where the party seeking condonation appears to be callous or negligent. In this judgment, it was further observed that the delay was sought to be condoned on the ground that the Clerk of the counsel misplaced the same and left the service and the appeal has been filed now on finding the file. The facts of the aforesaid case are identical to the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. FAO No.3058 of 2008] Since the application for condonation of 1355 days delay in re- filing the appeal has been dismissed, consequently the appeal is also dismissed. September 17, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge