CM No.25496-CII of 2008 and -1- FAO No.5026 of 2008 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.25496-CII of 2008 and FAO No.5026 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.3.2010 M/s Sandeep Rice Mill ..Appellant. Vs. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.J.S.Gill, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 188 days in filing of the appeal. On 12.12.2008, notice of motion was issued to which reply has been filed. It is submitted in the application that the learned District Judge, Feorzepur pronounced his order on 19.5.2007, the certified copy was applied on 22.5.2007 which was made available on 28.5.2007. However, the appeal has been filed on 28.2.2008 after expiry of 188 days. The reason assigned for the delay is as follows: “That the said delay, is bonafide and absolutely unintentional and has occurred due to the fact that the applicant was under a mistaken impression that the objection petition was still CM No.25496-CII of 2008 and -2- FAO No.5026 of 2008 (O&M) pending before the Learned District Judge. However upon enquiry it transpired that the Clerk of the counsel for the applicant before the learned District Judge had posted a letter to the applicant by ordinary post but the applicant firm did not receive the same and the letter posted by the Counsel at the trial court or by his clerk seems to have been lost in transit. The applicant came to know the factum of the award against them on 20.2.2008.” Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the reason assigned in the application is concocted and after-thought. It is submitted that counsel appearing before the trial Court was so agile and vigilant that he had applied for certified copy just after 3 days of the order i.e. on 22.5.2007 and the copying agency was also quick in delivering the certified copy of order on 28.5.2007. It is impossible that the appellants, who are millers and against whom the impugned order has been passed, would keep quite and would not contact their counsel and would remain under the impression that their Objections are still pending in the Court of District Judge. It is also submitted that the story coined by the appellant that certified copy was posted in ordinary post by their counsel appearing before the trial court and has not been received having been lost in transit, is also a made-up story as there is neither any affidavit filed by the counsel appearing before the trial Court nor of his clerk. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground much less sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 188 days in filing of the appeal. Hence, the present application is dismissed. CM No.25496-CII of 2008 and -3- FAO No.5026 of 2008 (O&M) Consequently, with the dismissal of the application, the appeal is also dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 19.3.2010 Judge Meenu