RFA No.5461 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.5461 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2011 Thakar Singh and others ....Appellants Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is landowners appeal challenging the impugned award of the Reference Court claiming further enhancement of compensation. There is a delay of 428 days in re-filing of this appeal. In support of his averments to condone the aforesaid delay, the following grounds have been taken:- “That the appeal was filed on 6.5.2009 and on 3.6.2009, when the vacations of this Hon'ble Court already started, the Registry of this Hon'ble Court raised certain objections and after opening of the Hon'ble High Court, in July 2009, the return was taken by the Clerk of the Counsel and in compliance to the objections raised, an application for RFA No.5461 of 2010 (O&M) 2 condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the appeal was to be filed and in support thereof, affidavit of the applicant was required to be filed, although the application was prepared on 6.7.2009 itself, but for want of signatures on Affidavit, of the applicant, the same could not be filed and the message sent by the Counsel, was received by the applicants late. Due to aforesaid factum, the delay in re-filing the appeal has been caused, which is neither deliberate nor intentional.” A perusal of the aforesaid ground would show that there was a delay of 80 days in filing this appeal and appellant knew about the aforesaid fact and had also got prepared the application for condoning the aforesaid delay of 80 days on 6.7.2009 itself. It is averred that the appellant could not affix his signatures and for that reason he was sent message by his counsel which was received by him late and therefore, the delay in re-filing the appeal has caused. From the aforesaid averments, it is clear that the appellant was in the knowledge of filing of the appeal as well as delay in re-filing the appeal. He also knew the factum of preparation of the application and affidavit to be filed for condoning the aforesaid delay. In spite of that he failed to do the needful in this regard and thus, he can not blame anyone else except himself for the delay caused in re-filing of this appeal. It is well settled that a litigant should not be given premium for his own wrongs. No other explanation is forthcoming. Thus, I find no reason to condone the aforesaid delay. Prayer for condoning the delay is rejected. RFA No.5461 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed being time barred. No other application survives. Dismissed. November 15, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE