- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No.1709 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.07.2011 Rishi Pal Solanki and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) C.M. No.4057 of 2011 Allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. No. 4058-CI of 2011 and R.F.A. No.1709 of 2011 By way of this appeal, the claimants-appellants have challenged the impugned award on the ground that market value of the land has been determined on the lower side. This appeal has been filed after 577 days from the expiry of limitation period. Along with this appeal, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. The submissions made in the aforesaid application reads as follows:- “3. That the applicants are residents of Delhi and did not come to know about the decision of the reference petition filed by them. - 2 - 4. That the reference was sought in the year 2005 and the decision thereon came in the year 2009. On account of passage of time, factum of pendency of the reference petition had receded in the background of the memory of the applicants. Initially, they would enquire about the pending proceedings every six months but after a couple of years, they had stopped enquiring about the outcome of the same, as they had requested some other claimants to inform them when the connected references were decided. 5. That the other claimants filed to inform the applicants within a reasonable period after the decision of the reference petition. In the month of December, 2010, the applicants visited Village Kassar to make enquiries and it was then that they came to know that the reference petition stood decided way back in March 2009. 6. That immediately after coming to know of the same, they applied a certified copy of the short order and on receipt thereof, the present appeal is being filed without any undue delay. 7. That on account of aforementioned facts, a delay of 577 days has taken place in filing of this appeal. The delay is unintentional and bona fide and not on account of any negligence of the applicants.” A perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that the appellants have adopted a causal approach and in fact, they were negligent in pursuing the remedy before the competent court of law. No benefit can be given to anyone due to his own fault. Thus, there are no sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in filing this appeal. Resultantly, prayer for condoning of delay of 577 days in filing the appeal is rejected. - 3 - Since the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected, this appeal is also dismissed as time barred. July 29, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vsa JUDGE