C.M.No.7945-C of 2011 and C.M.No.7947-C of 2011 in RSA No.2891 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.7945-C of 2011 and C.M.No.7947-C of 2011 in RSA No.2891 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 20, 2011 Punjab State Electricity Board and another .....Applicants-appellants v. Ajit Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.7945-C and 7947-C of 2011 The present applications have been filed for condonation of six days' delay in filing and inordinate delay of 1045 days in refiling the appeal. Ground taken by applicants-appellants for condonation of this inordinate delay of 1051 days in filing and refiling the appeal are that the appeal was filed on 15.7.2008, which was returned with objections and it was refiled on 17.7.2008. However, it was again returned with objections and thereafter the file was mixed up in other briefs of counsel for applicants-appellants and misplaced and it was traced on 15.5.2011 and filed on 17.5.2011. It was again returned with objections and again refiled on 4.6.2011 after removing the objections. It was again returned on 20.6.2011 and refiled on 18.7.2011. The application is accompanied by affidavit of Dev Singh, Clerk of counsel Mr.Sukhbir Singh. In reply to query put by this Court, the counsel informed that when the alleged file was C.M.No.7945-C of 2011 and C.M.No.7947-C of 2011 in RSA No.2891 of 2011(O&M) -2- misplaced, Dev Singh, Clerk was not his Clerk and somebody else was his Clerk. However, it is not believable that the file would be mixed up in the briefs and no official of the appellants enquired about the fate of the appeal even for a period of about three years. File was allegedly misplaced on 17.7.2008 and the same was allegedly traced out on 15.5.2011. This period of about three years has not at all been satisfactorily explained. Ground taken by the applicants-appellants for condonation of delay does not seem to be bonafide one. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants has placed reliance upon judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v Ahmed Jaan, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 119 and S.V.Matha Prasad v. Lalchand Meghraj and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 645. However, so far as condonation of delay is concerned, no straight jacket formula can be fixed and that each case is to be decided on the basis of its own peculiar facts. In Ahmad Jaan's case (supra) there were serious allegations against the accused including the charge under Section 124-A IPC for conspiring in waging war against the Government of India and hence, on the facts of that case, delay in filing the revision was ordered to be condoned. In S.V.Matha Prasad's case (supra) the delay was also properly explained and hence the same was condoned. In the present case, respondent was an employee of applicants- appellants, who has already retired from service long ago. He has filed suit for his retiral benefits and the suit was decreed by both the courts and now after so many years of his retirement, the litigation is sought to be C.M.No.7945-C of 2011 and C.M.No.7947-C of 2011 in RSA No.2891 of 2011(O&M) -3- revived. Hence, in view of these facts, what to talk of sufficient case, no case for condonation of inordinate delay of 1051 days in filing and refiling the appeal is made out. Applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal are dismissed. RSA No.2891 of 2011 The present appeal is dismissed as having not been filed and refiled within prescribed period of limitation. 20.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge