FAO No. 327 of 2007 19.9.2008 Present: Shri Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for appellant. Shri Amar Deep, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri B.M. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.5. CMP(M) No. 598 of 2007 This application has been moved by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer that delay in filing the appeal be condoned in the interest of justice. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents, who filed their replies. The allegations made in application are that claim petition out of which the appeal arises was decided by the learned Fast Track Court on 17th January, 2006. The copy of award was obtained on 3rd February, 2006. It is undisputed that limitation for filing the appeal was to expire on 21st April, 2006. This application alongwith the appeal was filed on 16th August, 2007. The appeal is barred by one year, three months and twenty seven days. The ground sought for condonation of delay is that counsel vide letter dated 12th April, 2006 informed the Branch Manager that appeal was to be filed. Thereafter, correspondence was exchanged between the parties. On 28th June, 2006 on the advise rendered by the counsel, the appeal was sought to be filed. It is also admitted that during this period, summons were received by the appellant herein of the appeal preferred by the claimants against the same judgment. The ground alleged for condonation of delay is that file remained pending for advise etc. and on the allegation that endorsement on the driving licence was purportedly fake and furnishing of wrong policy number. Replies to this application have been filed by the respondents. As noticed, notice of the appeal filed by claimants FAO No. 83 -2- of 2006 was received by the respondent before August, 2006 when that appeal was admitted. On the question as to whether the production of policy which is the main stay of the ground sought for condonation of delay by the appellant, the respondents have pleaded that notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the Insurance Company, but of no avail. This negates the reply filed by the respondents. Although this Court is liberal in condoning delay, but explanation offered by the appellant herein does not appear to be germane and cannot be accepted. An over all attempt has been made by the appellant herein to twist and contort facts. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why even after notice in the connected appeal was received, action was not taken and why a period of one year after the receipt of notice was allowed to elapse and what action had been taken till that time. It is also not explained as to why, if the Insurance Company was sure that the basis for the grant of claim was not based on facts which do not exist, and which could have been a ground for filing the appeal, why it was not filed without waiting for such a long period of time. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to condone delay. This application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. FAO No. 327 of 2007 In view of the decision in Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 598 of 2007, this appeal is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand dismissed. September 19, 2008(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J.