c^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH: BILASPUR Sirsgie Bench: Aopeilants Pjaintilfs Respondents Defendnats Respondents Defendants Hon'bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshraiukh, J. Secoiid ARsea?_Na_03 of_2^ 1. Ramhin Bai widow of Late Suklal Sahu, aged about 65 years, 2. Glrdhar Sal son of Suklal Sahu, aged about 36 years, 3. D,ashrath son of Suktal Sahu, aged about 32 years. 4. Bhofa son of Suklal Sahu, aged about 27 years, 5. Ramnath son of Sukia! aged about 19 yeafs All are the resident of village Shyamtarai, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (CG) Versus 1. Ramadheen S/o Maniram Sahu, aged about 55 years, resident of village Shyamtarai, Tahsi! and Distt Dhamtari (Cg) 2. Shyamkumari wife of Shiv Kumar aged about 40 years, resident of village Gokulpur, Tahsil and Distt Dhamtari (CG) 3. State of M.P. (presently CG) through District Collector, Dhamatari Second_appeaLunder Section 100 ofthe Code of Civii Procedure, 1908, Present: Shri A.N. Bhakta, oounsei for the appeliants. Shri Akhi! Agrawai, PL for State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on14.GI.2008) Heard on I.A. No. 1/2008 for condonation of detay of 1068 days in prefemng this appeal. (2) This appeal is by-the unsuccessfui appeliants/defendants in civil appeal No.78-A/2002. The appeitanVdefendants were represented by counsei before the trial Court as also before the iower appetlate Court. The only ground mentioned in the appiicatlon for condonation qf deiay is that the appeilants were under the bonafide impression that the appea! before the fower appefiate Court is stiil pending. However, this ground cannot be countenanced as it has no basis. i~ ^^wses^ ^..^^w^^, ^^ (3) In this view of the matter, no sufTicient ground for condonation of deiay is made out. i.A. No.1/2008 is therefore, dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is aiso dismissed as barred by fimitation. Priya Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge