FAO No.4818 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.4818 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 18.11.2010 **** Kewal Krishan . . . . Appellant Vs. Inderjit Kaur and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) CM No.20820-CII-2010 and FAO No.4818 of 2010 (O&M) This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 232 days in filing of the appeal. On 25.8.2010, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant had sought time to explain the averments made in para Nos.2 & 3 of the application. Thereafter, the case was adjourned twice but no affidavit was filed to explain the averments made in para Nos.2 and 3. Rather, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has stated at the Bar that the client has not contacted him despite information, therefore, he would argue the application as it is. Be that as it may, in Para No.2 of the application and also of the affidavit which is practically a copy of the application, it is mentioned that impugned order was passed on 23.02.2009 but at this stage learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that date 23.02.2009 has been wrongly typed because it is 23.9.2010. Copy of the same was received on 23.11.2009. It is then mentioned that the applicant/appellant had contacted a lawyer of the High Court who advised him to bring the entire record. After collecting the record, it was supplied to the lawyer at High Court on 15.12.2009. In para No.3 of the application, it FAO No.4818 of 2010 (O&M) -2- is mentioned that said papers were got mixed up with other files which were decided during the same period and despite the best efforts, could not be traced for long time and finally, it was found in the admitted and pending case. The brief was located on 25.7.2010 after a gap of 7 months. Thereafter, without wasting the time, appeal is filed. Mr.V.K. Sandhir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant has categorically stated that the applicant/appellant had neither contacted him nor supplied him the record of the case on 15.12.2009. He also submits that averments made in para Nos.3 of the application does not pertain to his office. He states that he had prepared the appeal on 29.7.2010 and after receiving the power of attorney on 10.8.2010, the appeal was filed on the same date. If the Statement of Mr.V.K. Sandhir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant made before the Court is correct, then para Nos.2 and 3 of the application which are devoid of material particulars, are concocted especially when despite opportunity applicant/appellant has not filed affidavit to explain the averments made in para Nos.2 and 3 of the application. Thus, In view of the above, present application is totally lacks bona fide and as such the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 18.11.2010 JUDGE Vivek