RSA No. 4583 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:11.05.2011 RSA No. 4583 of 2010 (O&M) Shiv Kumar ...Appellant Vs. Prem Wati and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. **** L.N.MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No. 13640-C-2010 This is application by appellant for condonation of delay of 325 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that initially the appellant used to attend the proceedings of the lower appellate court but, later on, he stopped attending the same after requesting counsel in lower appellate court to take care of proceedings because the appellant had to close shop for the whole day to attend the proceedings. The counsel agreed to take care of proceedings. After decision of the first appeal, counsel for the applicant- appellant in the lower appellate court sent letter by ordinary post to the applicant-appellant to intimate the decision of the appeal, but applicant- appellant did not receive the said letter. Ultimately, applicant-appellant contacted lower appellate court on 03.10.2010 to enquire about the fate of the first appeal and then applicant-appellant was informed that the appeal stood dismissed on 30.07.2009. Thereupon, the instant second appeal was RSA No. 4583 of 2010 (O&M) -2- filed on 7.10.2010 resulting delay of 325 days. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant reiterated the averments made in the application. However, on careful consideration thereof, no sufficient ground for condonation of long delay of more than 10 months is made out. Even if the applicant-appellant did not go to the lower appellate court on every date of hearing, even then, it was his duty to remain in touch with his counsel to know the status or fate of the appeal. The applicant-appellant would not have remained out of touch with his counsel for more than 14 months after the decision of the appeal. On the contrary, after every date of hearing, the applicant-appellant could have easily contacted his counsel to know the status of the appeal. It was the duty of the applicant-appellant to remain in touch with his counsel of the lower appellate court and not vice-versa. In these days of means of fast communication, the applicant-appellant could have even contacted his counsel on telephone. Vague and general ground pleaded by the applicant- appellant in the application that he did not remain in touch with his counsel and, therefore, he did not know that the first appeal stood dismissed, cannot be accepted to condone the delay of 325 days in filing the instant second appeal. Averments made in the application even if taken at face value do not constitute good or sufficient ground for condonding such long delay. If such long delay is condoned on such vague and general ground, then the law of limitation would be rendered completely infructuous and it would amount to repeal of the law of limitation which cannot be done. RSA No. 4583 of 2010 (O&M) -3- For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant application, which is accordingly dismissed. RSA 4583 of 2010 The appeal is dismissed as time barred. (L.N.MITTAL) JUDGE May 11, 2011 divyanshi