CM No.20712-CII of 2007 and -1- FAO No.4327 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.20712-CII of 2007 and FAO No.4327 of 2007 Date of Decision: 11.5.2010 Ram Sarup and others ..Appellants. Vs. Commissioner and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.D.D.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1196 days in filing of the appeal in which notice was issued to respondents No.2 and 3 on 10.2.2009. In response to the notice, respondent No.2 had put in appearance but despite repeated adjournments since 2008, respondent No.3 could not have been served as counsel for the appellants failed to provide his correct address. Be that as it may, the Court has asked the counsel for the appellants to argue the application for condonation of delay. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that delay has been caused because the appellants had engaged Sh.Sunil Kumar, Advocate of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and handed over copy of the order and the paper book of the case but he did not file any appeal. CM No.20712-CII of 2007 and -2- FAO No.4327 of 2007 Ultimately, the appellants came to the High Court on 14.8.2007 and after taking the brief from that counsel, handed over the same to the present counsel, who has filed the present appeal but in this process, delay of 1196 days has occurred. In my view, the story put-forward in the application is totally concocted because the impugned order was passed on 9.3.2004. Certified copy was allegedly applied, which was prepared on 14.9.2004 and Sh.Sunil Kumar, Advocate as alleged was engaged on 15.9.2004. According to the appellants, they contacted their counsel on 14.8.2007 and came to know that he has not filed the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he has tried his level best but could not trace out said Sh.Sunil Kumar, Advocate in this Court. It is not believable that the appellants would not contact their Advocate for over a period of 3 years after handing over the papers. It is also not mentioned that besides the papers of the case, said Advocate was also given his fee. Therefore, the reason assigned does not inspire confidence and as such, there is no ground for condonation of delay of 1196 days in filing of the appeal, therefore, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 11.5.2010 Judge Meenu