R. S. A. No. 90 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 90 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 04, 2011 Jagan Nath Goyal .... Appellant Vs. The Branch Manager, LIC, Sangrur and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. K. Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 317-C of 2011 : This is application for condonation of delay of 418 days in re- filing the appeal. It is alleged that the paper-book was received from the Registry with certain objections on 16.09.2009, but the documents of the appellant got mixed with some other paper-book, and therefore, the objections could not be complied with. The papers could be traced only on 11.07.2010 with great difficulty and the appeal was re-filed on 12.07.2010. However, the R. S. A. No. 90 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Registry again raised objection that legible copies of Annexures A-2 and A-3 be filed. The paper-book was handed over by the counsel to the appellant, who himself is a practicing Advocate at Sangrur. The appellant gave back the paper-book to the counsel in holidays of December and accordingly, the appeal was re-filed after re-opening of the Court. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant reiterated the averments made in the application. However, on careful consideration of the same, I find no merit in the application. It is alleged that objections raised by the Registry on 16.09.2009 could not be removed as documents given by the appellant to the counsel got mixed with some other paper- book. However, the only objection raised by the Registry on 16.09.2009 was that to treat the case as urgent one, application for stay along with affidavit should be filed. For this purpose, no other document was required and only stay application with affidavit was to be filed. Similarly, when the appeal was returned on 12.07.2010, legible copies of Annexures A-2 and A- 3 were to be filed, but the appellant took almost six months in re-filing the appeal thereafter. Obviously, preparation of legible copies of Annexures A- 2 and A-3 could not have taken such long time. It may be added that even after the appeal was re-filed on 03.01.2011, objection regarding filing of legible copies of Annexures A-2 and A-3 had not been removed. Thus, R. S. A. No. 90 of 2011 (O&M) 3 after the appeal was returned on 12.07.2010, it was re-filed on 03.01.2011 without removing the aforesaid objection. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no ground, much less sufficient ground, for condonation of long delay of 418 days i.e. more than one year and one month in re-filing the appeal. If such long delay is condoned on non-existent ground, then the very purpose of prescribing limitation period would be defeated. Consequently, I find no merit in the instant application, which is therefore dismissed. Main Appeal : Since delay in re-filing the appeal has not been condoned, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. April 04, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE