HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Singie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appeilant PiaintiffNo.5 Respondents :^ ^ ^: "l:. Second Appeal No.225/2008 Loknath Singh, S/o Late Shivdayal Rajput, aged about 47 years, R/o Vitlage: Khaira, Tahsil: Kota, Up Tahsil: Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (CG) Versus 1. Ramdayal; S/o Late Mardan Singh Rajput, aged about 75 years, R/o Viliage: Khaira, Tahsil: Kota, Up Tahsil: Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (CG) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, . Through: Collector, Bilaspur (CG) Respondent No.1 & 2 are defendants. 3. Pradbhu Sinsh, S/o Late Shivdayal Rajput, agedabout 58 years 4. Shiv Mangal, S/o L.ate Shivdayal Raj'puf, aged about 56 years 5. Raghunahdan Singh, S/o Late Shivdayai Rajput, aged about 51 years 6. Baijnath Singh, S/o Late Shivdayal Rajput, agedabout 43 years 7. Ramnath Singh, S/o Late Shivdayai Rajput, aged about45 years Respondent No.3to 7 are R/o Viilage: Khaira, Tahsil: Kota, Up Tahsit: Ratanpur, District: Bitaspur (CO) : 8. Smt. Phool Bai, S/o Late Shiv Dayal Rajput, aged about 50 years, W/6 Lakhan Singh, R/o Vittage Shivpur, Tahsjl Pali, Distt. Korba (CG) 9. Smt Kaushiiya Bai, S/o Late Shiv Dayal Rajput, aged about 40 years, W/o Govind Singh, R/o Village: Kaghribhav, Tahsil & Distt. Korea (CG) _ ' 10. Smt Dhankunwar, S/o Late Shiv Dayal Rajput, aged ahout 40 years, W/Q Gpvind Singh, R/o Village: Kaghnhav, Tahsil & Distt. Korea (CG) SecondaDDeaI under Section 100 ofCPC ^ Prt^..: Present: Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsei for the appellant. ORALORDER (Passed on 14.07.2008) Heard onl.A.No.1/2008, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation ofdelayof 39 days in filing the appeal. (2) In para 3 of the application I.A. No.1/2008, the sole ground mentjoned by the appellant is as under:- . "That, the appellant is a poor vilhger's and the counsel ofthe trial Courthas notgiven adviceto fhe appellant to preferred the second appeat before Hon'ble High Court." (3) In my considered opinion, this does not constitute any vaiid ground for condonation ofdelayin filihg theapReal. The appellant was represented by eounselnot only in the trial Court butalso in the lower AppellateCourt. (4) Since no ground js made out, application I.A. No.1 for condonatioh of delay under Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act is dismissed arid as a consequencethereof,theappeatisalsodismissedas barred^___ bylimitation. F Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge •—^.^^-t*""'-"~ •.' . .