FAO No.649 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. FAO No.649 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Balbir Singh ...Appellant(s) vs Narender Singh and others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: None for the appellant(s) -- Rakesh Kumar Garg, ,J.(Oral) There is a delay of 293 days in refiling and 170 days in filing this appeal. In the application for condonation of delay of 293 days in re-filing the appeal, the following averments have been made:- 2. That the counsel in the present appeal is Mr.R.K.Dahiya who for the last three-four years, is not keeping good health and on account of illness and ill health remains mostly in hospital. He comes out of the hospital for a few days and again gets admitted and this has been going on for the last three-four years. 3. That now things are getting worse and he is not coming to the Court for quite long time. Now the Clerk of Mr.R.K.Dahiya ha requested his colleague Mr.Deepak Dahiya, Advoate who was earlier working with him to re-file the present appeal as the clients were approaching him regularly. The undersigned counsel received the brief from the Clerk of Shri R.K.Dahiya. A detailed affidavit of the Clerk of Shri R.K.Dahiya is attached in support of the content of the application. But in this process a delay of 293 days has occurred which is neither intentional nor malafide” FAO No.649 of 2011 (O&M) 2 The said application is supported by an affidavit of the Clerk of the counsel. However, the averments made in this application are contrary to the record. The vakalatnama has been accepted by Shri Deepak Dahiya,Advocate, on 29.1.2010 along Shri R.K.Dahiya,Advocate, whereas in the application impression has been given that it was only Mr.R.K.Dahiya who was the counsel and was to file this appeal and Shri Deepak Dahiya, Advocate, has filed this application at his request only and an attempt has been made to show that refiling could not be done due to illness of Shri R.K.Dahiya, Advocate. There is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. In the application for condonation of delay of 170 days in filing the appeal, the following grounds have been raised: “2.that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to the fact that the file of the appeal has been misplaced by the Clerk of the counsel of appellant on 02.12.2008 and the file of the appeal has been found on 11.7.2009, because it was mixed in the briefs of the another counsel.” The averments are too vague and in the absence of any evidence to support the same, the same cannot be accepted. Thus, prayer for condonation of delay of 170 days in filing the appeal is rejected. Since the appeal is time barred and prayer for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal has been rejected, the appeal is dismissed being barred by time. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge April 26, 2011 rk