In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 562 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 02, 2009 Ram Murti Verma .. Appellant Vs. Parminder Singh and other .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Jyoti Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent No.3. A.N. Jindal, J This order of mine shall dispose of an application for condonation of delay of 224 days in filing the appeal. The award in this case was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh on 9.1.2007. In the ordinary course, the appeal was to be preferred by 9.4.2007. It has been pleaded that the appellant had earlier applied for copy of the order on 30.1.2007 which was misplaced, as such he again applied for copy of the order on 30.8.2007. The grounds as set out for condonation of delay are that the counsel for the appellant while receiving copy of the order on 30.1.2007 from the appellant, had assured for filing the appeal in the High Court within time, when contacted later to know about the fate of the appeal on 5.11.2007, then his counsel told that the appeal has not been preferred and on demand, he also did not return the copy of the judgment. Thus, while pleading the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has urged that the grounds as set out by the appellant for condoning the delay could be treated as sufficient for condoning the delay. The said application has been opposed by Ms. Jyoti Chaudhary, Advocate stating that after passing of the award, the claimant had filed the execution application, therefore, the question of delay on the part of the counsel or for loss of the copy of the award does not arise. Having heard the rival contentions, the allegations as stated in the application are vague in nature. No affidavit of the counsel to whom the judgment was handed over for filing appeal has been filed. The petitioner FAO No. 562 of 2008 (O&M) -2- *** being the resident of Chandigarh could not be said to be so ignorant of the process adopted in filing the appeal. He remained silent for an year and now has projected a false defence to bring the appeal within limitation. It may further be noticed that since the appellant, on the basis of the copy of the judgment, immediately after the judgment, had filed the execution petition, therefore, the stay with regard to misplacing of the copy of the judgment by his counsel turns to be false. As such, finding no sufficient grounds for condoning the delay, the application is dismissed. Consequently the appeal also fails. July 02, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge