CM No.11134-C of 2010 1 in/and RSA No.1057 of 2010(O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.11134-C of 2010 in/and RSA No.1057 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:04.10.2010 Notified Area Committee, Naya Nangal ....appellant Versus Rattan Devi & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sandeep Khunger,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): CM No.11134-C of 2010 Affidavit of the Executive Officer,Municipal Council, Naya Nangal, has been placed on record along with certain documents. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, order dated 11.08.2010 is recalled and the Civil Misc.application No.5385-C of 2010 and RSA No.1057 of 2010 is restored to its original number. Civil Misc.application is disposed of. CM No.5385-C of 2010 and RSA No.1057 of 2010(O & M) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby suit of the CM No.11134-C of 2010 2 in/and RSA No.1057 of 2010(O & M) plaintiff-respondent has been decreed holding that the plaintiff-respondent shall be entitled to a total area of 47K-5M out of 63 kanals and there is deficiency of 8 Kanals in that regard which is liable to be made good by the appellant. The impugned judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court was passed on 22.09.2005, whereas the present appeal has been filed on 02.03.2010, after a delay of 1530 days. Along with the appeal, an application has been filed for condonation of the aforesaid delay of 1530 days in filing this appeal on the ground that originally the appeal was filed on 24.09.2005 within the limitation period. However, the Registry had raised certain objections and the appeal which was returned to the counsel for the appellant for doing the needful, was misplaced and could not be traced and resultantly the delay of 1530 days occurred in filing this appeal. In the application filed for condonation of delay, no explanation has been submitted. It is relevant to point out that as per the affidavit of the Executive Officer, it was to the knowledge of the officials of the appellant that the appeal was entrusted to its earlier counsel and the same was also filed in this Court in December 2005 but there is absolutely no explanation as to why the office of the appellant kept silent during the period w.e.f. December 2005 till 2nd March, 2010. The appellant has not given any explanation as to why the earlier counsel of the appellant was not contacted regarding pursuing the appeal and to know the status of the appeal. Admittedly, the appellant Municipal Council has not made any correspondence with its earlier lawyer, through whom, this appeal was filed in the year 2005. Thus, it cannot be said that Municipal Council was pursuing the appeal diligently and in a bona fide manner. CM No.11134-C of 2010 3 in/and RSA No.1057 of 2010(O & M) In this view of the matter and in the absence of any material on record, I find that there are no sufficient reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 1530 days in filing this appeal. Civil Misc.application is dismissed. Consequently, this appeal does not survive and is dismissed as time barred. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 04.10.2010 neenu