CM No.12079-C of 2010 and CM No.12198-C of 2010 in/and REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.4056 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.12079-C of 2010 and CM No.12198-C of 2010 in/and RSA No.4056 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 16, 2011 Gunmeet Rai .... Appellant Versus Balraj Singh Rai & others .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.12079-C of 2010 and CM No.12198-C of 2010 Both these applications have been moved by Mrs. Gunmeet Rai- plaintiff/appellant for condonation of delay of 1560 days in refiling the appeal. In CM No.12079-C of 2010, it was alleged that the appeal was filed on 10.02.2006. It was returned many times by the Registry by raising objections and was refiled after removing the objections. Defendant-respondent No.1 also filed RSA No.294 of 2007 which came up for hearing on 22.04.2010. Applicant-appellant, who is respondent No.1 in that appeal, has put in appearance in that appeal. Both the parties are assailing the same judgment and delay of 1560 days in refiling the appeal be condoned as the same occurred inadvertently and also because RSA No.294 of 2007 has been filed by respondent No.1. CM No.12079-C of 2010 and CM No.12198-C of 2010 in/and REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.4056 OF 2010 -2- Realizing that aforesaid averments made in CM No.12079-C of 2010 even if taken at face value would not be sufficient to condone the long delay of 1560 days i.e. more than four years three months, appellant-plaintiff filed CM No.12198-C of 2010 for the same relief, alleging that the delay occurred as the appellant could not arrange court fee. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant contended that delay in refiling the appeal occurred because the applicant also could not arrange court fee for the appeal. The contention is completely frivolous and meritless. Appellant had filed the suit as well as first appeal as indigent person and she was permitted to do so by the trial court and the first appellate court. Consequently if the plaintiff-appellant had no resources to pay court fee for the second appeal, she could file the second appeal also as indigent person. The contention that delay of 1560 days occurred on account of arranging the court fee does not cut any ice and is difficult to digest. This excuse has been taken as an after-thought only because appellant earlier filed CM No.12079-C of 2010 in which no ground much less sufficient ground was pleaded for condonation of the aforesaid long delay. However, even in CM No.12198 of 2010, the ground pleaded for condonation of the said long delay is completely baseless and unfounded and devoid of merit. If long delay of four years three months is condoned on such vague, general and specious ground and rather completely untenable ground, the very purpose of prescribing limitation period would be defeated completely. Such long delay cannot be condoned unless there is very strong ground for condoning the same. In the instant case, what CM No.12079-C of 2010 and CM No.12198-C of 2010 in/and REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.4056 OF 2010 -3- to talk of strong ground there is no ground at all for condoning the long delay. This Court has all the sympathy with the appellant over her plight (deserted by NRI husband), but on the basis of sympathy or compassion alone, law cannot be given complete go-by. For the reasons aforesaid, both the applications are dismissed being devoid of merit. Main appeal: Since applications for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal have been dismissed, the appeal also stands dismissed on this ground. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 16th February, 2011 'raj'