R.S.A. No. 3648 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3648 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.1.2009 Parveen Kumar Gupta ....Appellant Versus Thaper Centre for Industrial Research and Development, Patiala ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.M. Nos. 10824-C and 10825-C of 2008 C.M. No. 10824-C of 2008 has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay of 532 days in refiling the appeal. The ground taken for seeking condonation of delay in refiling the appeal reads as under: - “That the impugned orders were passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala dated 10.12.2004 and by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 9.10.2006 dismissing the suit and appeal respectively. However, the appellant, being not at all versed with the legal provisions as well as the provisions as prescribed under the limitation Act, contacted the counsel on 20th February, 2007 and this RSA was filed on 24th February, 2007. However, the said regular second appeal was returned by the branch due to certain objections. The counsel removed the objections but thereafter the case file got misplaced in the office due to the inadvertant mistake of the clerk of the counsel. That it was only on 14th September, 2008 that the case file was found again.” R.S.A. No. 3648 of 2008 (O&M) -2- In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Krishan Dev Dhiman Vs. Mahesh Bhatia and others, 2008(4) PLR 23 the application deserves to be dismissed. It may further be noticed that besides delay in refiling referred to above, there is another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act i.e. No. 10825-C of 2008, seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the appeal. Reasons given for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal read as under: - “That the impugned orders were passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala dated 10.12.2004 and by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 9.10.2006 dismissing the suit and appeal respectively. However, the appellant, being not at all versed with the legal provisions as well as the provisions as prescribed under the Limitation Act, contacted the counsel on 20th February, 2007 and this Regular Second Appeal was filed on 24th February, 2007.” The averments made herein do not make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal. Consequently both the applications, referred to above, are ordered to be dismissed. R.S.A. No. 3648 of 2008 In view of dismissal of the applications for condoning the delay in filing and refiling, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed as time barred. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 29, 2009 R.S.