$-21,22&23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + (1) LA.APP. 652/2011 SWAROOP SINGH Appellant Through: Mr. Subhash Karnboj & Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA LA.APP. 653/2011 BALBIR SINGH Appellant Through: Mr. Subhash Karnboj & Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA LA.APP. 660/2011 BALBIR SINGH Appellant Through: Mr. Subhash Kamboj & Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocates. versus LA.APP Nos.652,653 & 660 of2011 Page 1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified UNION OF INDIA & ANR. . Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 30.11.2011 CM No.18391/2011 (u/O 41 R 3A & Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay of 1100 days) & LAA. APP 652/2011 CM No. 18379/2011 (u/O 41 R 3A & Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay of 1100 days) & LAA. APP 653/2011 CM No. 18570/20 10 (ulO 41 R 3A & Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay of appx. 1000 days) & LAA. APP 660/2011 Applicants- Swaroop Singh, who has filed LA.APP 652/2011 and applicant- Balbir Singh, who has filed LA.APP 653(2011 & LA.APP 660/20 1 1 and the accompanying applications, are no doubt senior citizens and the delay in filing of the appeals by both these applicants is more than three years. To be precise, in appeal being LA.APP 666/2011, the delay is of two months less than three years. In the applications for condonation of delay filed by these two applicants, the reason given is identical and so, these three matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Since in the applications for condonation of delay all that is stated by both the applicants is that though the order impugned is of August, 2008 but in May, 2011 certified copy of the impugned order was applied and the delay occasioned is due to bona fide mistake of the applicants. The LA.APP Nos.652,653 & 660 of2011 Page 2 0 applicants were given liberty to file a better affidavit in support of their applications for condonation of delay and in the better affidavits filed by them, it was disclosed that they had instructed their counsel appearing before the Reference Court to file the appeal against the impugned order. In the year 2010, applicants had purportedly received notice of admission of the appeals of Union of India against the impugned order and as disclosed in the better affidavits, applicants were under the bona fide belief that their appeal against the impugned order to seek enhancement had been filed. Applicants claim to have learnt about non-filing of the appeals on their behalf when it came to their knowledge that the appeals filed by Union of India against the impugned order has been dismissed by this Court on 23' August, 2011. After having heard both the sides, it transpires that the applicants herein are also indulging in speculative litigation, as this Court in LA.APP 266/2008, 'Jai Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.', rendered on 23rd August, 2011 has not only dismissed the appeal of Union of India but has also enhanced the compensation in relation to the impugned award in the appeals preferred by similarly placed claimants. The recent trend of indulging in speculative litigations has been deprecated by me in LA APP No. 617/2011, 'Satbir singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.' vide separate detailed order of today, while refusing to condone the delay in filing such belated appeals. Adopting the reasoning, as given by me in Satbir Singh (Supra), and in view of the fact that the name of the counsel, who was contesting before the Reference Court, is neither disclosed in the better affidavit nor is evident from the impugned order and it is not even stated in the affidavits filed by these applicants as to whether they had found out from. their previous counsel as to why he had not filed the appeal against the impugned award in LA.APP Nos.652,653 & 660 of2011 Page 3 © time, I find that the cause shown for condoning the delay to be not only insufficient but to be half baked. Simple instructions issued to the previous counsel to file the appeal is not enough, as it is to be averred that the previous counsel was properly engaged for filing the appeal against the impugnedaward. This material assertion is lacking even in the better affidavit filed in support of the applications seeking condonation of delay. 5. Finding the reason disclosed for the delay of about three years in filing the accompanying appeals to be insufficient, I dismiss the applications Lor condonation of delay. Resultantly, the three appeals accompanying with these applications, are also dismissed being time barred. JUDGE NOVEMBER 30, 2011 rs LA.APP Nos.652,653 & 660 of2011 Page 4