F.A.O. No. 5785 of 2010 (O&M) 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 5785 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 14th, 2011 Munirunnesa @ Sagun Khatoon and others .... Appellants Versus Surinder Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Joginder Sharma , Advocate, for the applicant-appellants. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Alongwith the appeal, brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, the claimants have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 816 days in bringing this appeal. The claimants have submitted that certified copy of the award dated 25.4.2008 was misplaced by them. Later on, the claimant – Munirunnesa @ Sagun Khatoon went to her native place in Uttar Pradesh. Only three months back, she returned from her native place in Uttar Pradesh. She is an illiterate lady and was not aware of the filing of the appeal for enhancement of compensation. Only on the persuasion of the counsel, she has F.A.O. No. 5785 of 2010 (O&M) 2 ... contacted the counsel in the High Court and, therefore, the appeal became late by 816 days. Claiming the delay to be neither intentional nor malafide and that it has been caused inadvertently due to the reasons mentioned above, the delay is prayed to be condoned. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the application, though, he has not filed a written reply thereto. According to him, the application is just vague and there is no believable ground mentioned in the application sufficient to explain the delay of 816 days. According to him, the delay in bringing the appeal cannot be condoned on such vague ground. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application as well as the appeal, being time barred. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellants has just reiterated the plea mentioned in the application. He has nothing more to add to the same. Apart from the date of the award, i.e., 25.4.2008, no other date is mentioned in the application. It is not mentioned as to when copy of the award was obtained. It is also not mentioned as to when it was misplaced. It is further not mentioned as to when the applicant, Munirunnesa left for her native place in Uttar Pradesh and lastly, the date of her return from her native place is also not mentioned. The applicant has although mentioned that on persuasion of the counsel, she contacted the counsel in the High Court and has filed the F.A.O. No. 5785 of 2010 (O&M) 3 ... appeal, yet when and in what connection she met her counsel is also not mentioned in the application. The record shows that the copy of the award dated 25.4.2008 was applied on 30.4.2008 and it was ready for delivery on 19.5.2008. It shows that she had not applied for another copy for filing the appeal and, therefore, it has to be presumed that the misplaced copy of the award was traced by her. When and wherefrom the same became available to the applicant has also not come in the application. The question that arises before me is as to whether condonation of delay of 816 days can be ordered on such a vague plea of the applicant-appellants. Although, the claimant is the widow of the deceased, yet for that fact alone, the delay of 816 days in filing the appeal and that too, for no acceptable reason, cannot be condoned. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. FAO No. 5785 of 2010 Since the delay of 816 days in filing the appeal has not been condoned and the application filed in this regard has been dismissed, the appeal is time barred and is dismissed as such. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 14th , 2011 som