c. ^ ' ^FH^- IB THE HIGH COURT OF JVDICATURE AT BttAS»UR (CHHATTISGARHl APPaAAWT/ PLAINTIFF RESPONDEBTS / DEFENDANT^ .-' <cf~ L<^' ^ ^- ^0> ? / Single Bsach S.A. So.y^ \ /2004 / Radheshyain Sahu, S/o. Maarakhan Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o. Village Siyaninara, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ,:!. Ansuiya Bai, aged about 33 years , Gulabcfaaiid, D/o. Ansuiya Bai ^ Aged about 3 years, Minor through natural guardian ruother Ansuiya Bai, Both R/o. Village Siyanniara, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) ^. ••• <<y SECOND APPEAL V/S. 100 OF CODB OF CrVXL PROCEDURE AG.AINE?r THE JODOMENT AWD DBCREB DATED 11.07.2003 PASSBD BY THB VIMb ABDITIONAI. DISTRICT JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT»DORG (C.G.) IN CIVILAPPBAI. N0. 15-A/2003 COMFIRMIBfG THE JUDGBtEKT AHD DBCRBE OF THE TRIAI. tef- COURTDATED 13.11.1995 XI-HC-22 NlfMI SfifffK s^ •^i'qw-i, ®Tflw<i(o,Rii'iiyy Slf^yi 4^qi ^,....sA-...3^|^ „„ sn^rw f^iRTsn^r **<i+ tiRtf ]iE.t-il>-»l ;^-itS8aN!f 3n^r?(gTw^(T TO»f?pft?irmcff ^'tet^ (fSrezR ^sri^irsn^r 11/03/2005 Shri D.N.Prajapati, counset )|orthe appellants. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, coun^el forthe respondents. Heard on M.C.P. No. 797/?004 for condonatson of delay in flling the appeal. Leamed counse! Tor the aplaellant submits that the appeat cou!d not be filed within time ss the coi|insel appearing in the lower Court did not send the information regardin^ the impugned judgment and decree and file of the case was also misfj was traced after a long seareh, laced and as such the appeliant could not make arrangement for filing W(e same.It is only aftsr the original iile vacation. Learned counsel for the re the appeal was filed during summer pondent submits that the ground of fite being misplaced, taken by the apjaellant for condonation of deiay in flling the appeat was not bonafide and by getting the originat record. I have heard counse! for th^ parties. The only ground taken in ufficient as he could reconstruct the file le application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is that the apF|ellant was not intimated by the counsel regarding dismissal ofthe appeal|and further that file could not be traced even after long seareh. According was traced only after a immediately thereafter the appea| condonation ofdelay. to the counsel for ttie appellant, the file search during summer vacation and was filed along with the appiication for (4^^f^) I) XI-HC-22 3^ •<ii<<i<n<4, (STnu'is, Rii-tlti^ 3T1^?I *<INMI Sh*<|th OT?W> .....^A.:.A%rt|^ 200 sn^r^r f^iNisn^T Stiwfi ylga '•} lt£>' ^ 3TI^?r ??tHW Hf?tT -S-- Learned counsel for the qil<lFCT<f)-1 1|t|(lTifte1Efl'<Rl«K ^3rf^IT3I1^T This submission made b^ the counsel for the appticant is not accepteble. respondent submits that there is no explanation as to when the flle w^s traced and as to why the file could not be reconstructed and as such (ie application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is liable to be dismi^sed. After hearing counsel for blottt the partigs, 1 am of the view that the "f '1L^ appellant has failed to explain th^ delay properly in filing the appeal and as such the apptication for eondo|iation ofdelay is llable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Consequently.the appeal .tands dismissed. Sd/- h Judge ra