R.S.A. No. 3546 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3546 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 1.4.2009 Karnail Singh .......... Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. Nos. 9886-87-C of 2007 C.M. No. 9887-C of 2007 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 6 days in filing the appeal whereas C.M. No. 9886-C of 2007 has been filed U/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay of 780 days in refiling, the appeal. The ground taken for condoning the delay in refiling the appeal reads as under :- “3. That the case file was wrongly put in some admitted brief and it was just located on 3.04.2007 and the same is being filed today without any further delay.” This cannot be a ground to condone the delay in refiling in R.S.A. No. 3546 of 2007 2 view of law laid by this Court in the case of Krishan Dev Dhiman Vs. Mahesh Bhatia and others 2008(4) P.L.R. 23 The learned counsel for the applicant / appellant however placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kuldip Singh Vs. Krishan Kumar and others AIR 1974 Delhi 145, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to hold that bona fide mistake of counsel or counsel's Clerk can be considered as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Babu Singh Vs. M.C. Ropar and others (2001-2) PLR 747, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down that when the appeal is filed within the period prescribed under law, subsequent delay in complying with other objections raised by the Registry cannot be said to be fatal to the maintainability of the appeal. The contention raised is that the delay in refiling the appeal cannot be a ground to reject the application as said delay cannot be said to be fatal. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ramji Das Vs. Kumarakalathi Mudali and others AIR 1932 Madras 142 and judgments of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the cases of Hanuman Dass Vs. Pirthvi Nath and others A.I.R. 1956 Allabahad 677 and finally the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Esbee Inds. Corpn. Vs. M/s Buck Systems Int. Ltd. 2001(2) Apex Court Journal 5 (S.C.) in support of the application for condoning the delay in refiling the appeal. R.S.A. No. 3546 of 2007 3 In all the aforementioned judgments the Hon'ble Courts have been pleased to lay down that the sufficient cause should be construed to advance substantial justice and in the facts and circumstances in each of cases the Hon'ble Court found sufficient cause to condone the delay. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as raised cannot be accepted in view of the detailed reasons given in the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishan Dev Dhiman Vs. Mahesh Bhatia and others 2008(4) P.L.R. 23. Consequently the applications are dismissed. R.S.A. No. 3546 of 2007 The regular second appeal is dismissed being time barred. 1.4.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE