IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.1708-C of 2005 and R.S.A. No. 667 of 2005 Date of Decision : 13.01.2009 Gram Panchayat, Village Balana ....Appellant Versus Jutha and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Pawar, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal has been filed after a delay of 944 days. It was contended before this Court that the impugned judgment was passed on 22.11.2001 and the counsel for the appellant had not provided the information regarding the final decision of the case. It was also pleaded that the earlier Sarpanch had failed to prosecute the appeal and he did not take any step to file the Regular Second Appeal. It was after the present Sarpanch, who took over, that the mistake was discovered and also because the execution proceedings had been started. The application has been perused. Except for saying that the information had not been provided by the counsel prosecuting the appeal in the first Appellate Court, no other facts have been given as C.M.No.1708-C of 2005 in R.S.A. No. 667 of 2005 (O&M) -2- to when the earlier Sarpanch relinquished the office and the subsequent Sarpanch i.e. the present Sarpanch took over, and as to when it was discovered that the appeal had not been filed. Thus the plea taken regarding condonation of delay does not seem credible. The appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 944 days. The reasons given in the application are totally vague and are not substantiated. No ground for condonation of delay is made out. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the main appeal is also dismissed on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 13.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss