C.M.No.1542-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.707 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.1542-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.707 of 2010 (O&M). Date of decision:20.09.2011 Union of India and others ....Appellants Versus Yoginder Lal and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) There is a delay of 513 days in re-filing this appeal. The averments made in this application read thus:- “That there is a delay of 513 days in re-filing the appeal. The delay in re-filing has been caused as after the return of the paper book of the appeal, the counsel for the appellant brought the objections as raised by the registry in the notice of the office of the appellant. Due to the processing in the office for the removal of the objections, the delay in re-filing the appeal has been caused. After the removal of the objections as raised by the registry the appeal is being re-filed. There is no intentional delay in re-filing the appeal. But the same has been caused due to the reasons explained above. The delay in re-filing the apepal may be condoned and the appeal be heard and decided on merits in the interest of justice. That the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case C.M.No.1542-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.707 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Dilbag Singh Vs. Collector Land Acquisition (2002(2)RCR Civil 764 has held that pendency of the appeal relating to the same acquisition constituted a valid ground for condonation of delay in filing of the RFA”. Relevant para No.14 of the judgment is being reproduced as under:- “14. We are futgher of the view that the pendency of appeals arising out of the awards passed by the District Judge in other cases relating to the same acquisition constituted a valid ground for condonation of delay in filing of the RFA by the appellant and the learned Single Judge ered in declining his prayer.” Hence, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The delay in filing of theRFA is condoned. The RFA may now be listed for hearing before the learned Single Judge along with other similar appeals. Since number of appeals arising out of the same acquisition have been admitted and are still pending for final hearing, so the delay in re-filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal may be heard and decided on merits in the interest of justice.” However, no affidavit has been attached in support of the averments made in this application. Thus, the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in re-filing of appeal, have remained unsubstantiated. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. RFA No.707 of 2010 Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred. September 20, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE C.M.No.1542-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.707 of 2010 (O&M) 3