RSA No. 2963 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2963 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 2.2.2009 Surjit Singh .......... Appellant Versus Baljeet Kaur & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Rattan, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) Along with regular second appeal two applications i.e. C.M. No. 8236-C of 2007 and C.M. No. 8237-C of 2007, have been filed for condonation of delay of 208 days in filing the appeal and 297 days in refiling the appeal. The grounds taken for condonation of delay for filing the appeal read as under :- 2. That the fact earlier it was not within the knowledge of the applicant regard the decision of the case against him decided in appeal by the learned Lower Appellate Court, when it came to know regarding the order of the Learned Lower Appellate Court, by that RSA No. 2963 of 2007 (O&M) -2- time it was already delayed and thereafter, time lapse in arranging the money for the court fee. 3. That after arranging the court fee the appeal is filed immediately without any further delay and there was no entrust of the applicant in delaying the matter, so the delay is caused due to the reasons mentioned above and the circumstances were beyond the control of applicant. The delay in filing the appeal is not caused intentionally and knowingly rather has been caused due to the reasons explained above.” and that for condoning the delay in refiling the appeal read as under : “2. That the case are returned with certain objections misplaced in the office of the counsel for the applicant, as house of the counsel for applicant is under construction and the office is shifted from his house to house no. 3284 Section 35-D, Chandigarh. During shifting the brief was misplaced and now it is traced and appeal is being re-filed without any further delay.” In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Krishan Dev Dhiman Vs. Mahesh Bhatia & others 2008(4) PLR 23, the grounds raised for condonation of delay in refiling cannot be said to be sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. Consequently, both the applications are ordered to be dismissed. RSA No. 2963 of 2007 Dismissed as time barred. 2.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE