CM No.7844-CI of 2009 in/and -1- RFA No.2769 of 2009 ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.7844-CI of 2009 in/and RFA No.2769 of 2009 Date of decision:28.10.2010. Smt. Munni Devi and others ...Appellants Versus Haryana State and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the applicants/appellants. Mr. Lekh Raj Nandal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for condonation of delay of 3631 days in filing of the appeal. Notice in the application was issued to which reply is filed in the Court and a copy thereof is handed over to learned counsel for the applicants/appellants. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants has submitted that the impugned award was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal on 09.01.1999 by which a bunch of cases, including LAC Case Nos.171, 178, 188, 201, 202 and 203 of 1997, was decided. The applicants/appellants had only filed one appeal, i.e. RFA No.1918 of 1999, being claimants in LAC Case No.171 of 1997 under the impression that all the references filed by them have been decided by a common order, therefore, in all the references, only one appeal filed by them would be sufficient. It is further alleged that after the decision of LAC Case No.171 of 1997 in RFA No.1918 of 1999, certified copy was obtained and the Trial Court lawyer was contacted on 08.03.2009 and then the present appeal was filed along with the application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The reason was, thus, assigned that the delay has been caused due to a misunderstanding and CM No.7844-CI of 2009 in/and -2- RFA No.2769 of 2009 ****** is not deliberate. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the application is cleverly drafted by the applicants/appellants who have awakened from the deep slumber after the expiry of a period of more than 10 years for the purpose of filing the present appeal after the success of LAC Case No.171 of 1997. The reason put forward in the application is, thus, termed as a concocted story and prayer is made for dismissal of the application with heavy costs. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the application and reply. It is really surprising that the applicants/appellants has taken the stand that they were not aware of filing of separate appeals against the impugned award of the Reference Court although they had filed separate references before the Collector, which were referred by him to the Civil Court for the purpose of its adjudication and separate LAC numbers were given to the separate references which were pertaining to separate parcels of land. The explanation given by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants is, thus, neither believable nor falls within the terms of sufficient cause, therefore, I do not find any reason to condone the exorbitant inordinate delay of 3631 days in filing of the present appeal. Hence this application is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, although without any order as to costs. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed. October 28, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE