IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 5092 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: November 29, 2011 Ranjit .. Appellant Vs. Yad Ram and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The trial court vide judgment dated 24.7.2002 had partly decreed the suit to the extent that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of ½ share in the agricultural land comprised of khewat/khatoni No.836/839 and 870, killa No. 85 2/1 (1-13), 91/10 (8-0), 11 (8-0), total measuring 17 kanals 13 marls situated within the revenue estate of village Dighot, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad and the defendants- appellants (herein referred as, 'the defendant') were also restrained from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the aforesaid land and also from alienating the same or from creating any charge over it in any manner illegally or forcibly. Still dis-satisfied, the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the appellate court vide judgment dated 24.11.2006 modified the findings returned by the trial court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff in toto which is now under challenge before this Court in regular second appeal. Since the appeal preferred by the defendant is delayed by 1300 days in filing, therefore, the same is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The grounds taken by the defendant- appellant Ranjit (legal heir of the original defendant No.1) is that after passing of the impugned judgment on 24.11.2006, a miscellaneous application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of CPC, seeking correction in the judgment was filed which was decided on 18.8.2009 and thereafter, a dialogue and deliberations regarding compromise and settlement had came into being. However, the said efforts failed on 10.9.2010 when the respondent No.1 flatly refused for any compromise, as such, he has R.S.A. No. 5092 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** preferred this regular second appeal as such the delay was liable to be condoned. Heard. As a matter of fact, the appeal suffers from serious delay of 1300 days. The appeal should have been filed within 90 days of the passing of the judgment. Even if, the application for correction of the judgment has been dismissed on 18.8.2009, the appellant did not bother to prefer an appeal. The plea that he did not file the appeal as he was anticipating some compromise, is no sufficient ground to condone the delay. As such, there are no sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the accompanying appeal also fails. November 29, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge