IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.11127-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.4487 of 2010 Date of Decision:28.07.2011 Dharam Singh & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State through Collector and ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Viney Saini, Advocate for Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the petitioners *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): CM No.9833-CI of 2011 Civil Misc.is allowed. Reply is taken on record. CM disposed of. RFA No.4487 of 2010 This is claimants' appeal challenging the impugned award dated 07.06.2003 of the reference Court passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 submitting that compensation awarded to the appellants is inadequate. This appeal has been filed after a delay of 2348 days. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. The averments made in this application to establish sufficient cause to condone the delay read thus: That the Addl.District Judge, Gurdaspur decided the reference vide Award dated 7.6.2003. The counsel in the trial court did not inform the appellants about the decision of the case. CM No.11127-CI of 2010 -2- in/and RFA No.4487 of 2010 The appellants came to know from other persons only in the first week of March 2009 and as such they approached the trial court counsel for obtaining the certified copy of the Award. The certified copy of Award has been applied on 10.03.2009 and the same has been prepared on 10.04.2009. That the clerk of the trial court counsel did not inform the appellants about the preparation of the certified copy of the Award and the appellants visited 2-3 times and they were told that the certified copy of Award has not been received but it has been put by the clerk in some other brief. The counsel in the trial court got traced the certified copy of the Award from his clerk as the same was put in other brief at the time of white wash of the office of the trial court counsel. The certified copy of the Award has been made available only on 26.01.2010 and thereafter the present appeal has been prepared and being filed before the Hon'ble Court. A perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that appellants were totally negligent in pursing their remedy and had not acted with due diligence. A bald assertion has been made that counsel in the trial Court did not inform the appellants about the decision dated 07.06.2003 and they have come to know about the decision in the first week of March 2009 from other persons. Even in the application, the names of other persons who inform them about the decision has not been mentioned. It is their further case that they applied for certified copy of the CM No.11127-CI of 2010 -3- in/and RFA No.4487 of 2010 impugned award which was prepared on 10.04.2009. However, the clerk of the trial Court counsel did not inform the appellants about the preparation of the certified copy, despite their repeated visits and thereafter counsel in the trial Court got traced the certified copy from his clerk and made available to the appellants on 26.01.2010 and thereafter the present appeal has been filed. The plea as stated above, is not supported by any kind of evidence. Even, it has not been averred that the appellants have filed any complaint to the police or Bar Council or any other authority against the trial Court counsel who had not informed them. Not only this, in fact, it is the duty of the litigant to pursue his remedy with due diligence. It is not shown as there was any obligation on the part of the trial court lawyer to inform the appellants after the decision of the case. More and more cases are being filed before this Court praying for condonation of huge delay of many years on such like pleas. No premium can be given to the appellants for their own wrong. Thus, the court is not believing the plea raised and therefore rejects the prayer for condonation of delay of 2343 days in filing the appeal. Since the application for condonation of delay has been rejected, this appeal is also rejected, being time barred. Dismissed. 28.07.2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) neenu JUDGE