RFA No. 2403 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CMs No. 5112 to 5115-CI of 2008 & RFA No. 2403 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.07.2009 Smt. Kiran ....Appellant Versus Jagdish Chander and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 5114-CI of 2008 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condoning the delay of 1716 days in filing the appeal. The only ground for seeking condonation of delay reads as under: - “That after passing of the award the respondent No. 1 filed execution petition and when the appellant came to know about the passing of the award she with ill advise filed objection to the execution application and RFA No. 2403 of 2008 (O&M) -2- since the objection to the execution petition was filed on the basis of ill advice, she was advised to challenge the illegal order dated 26.5.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Panipat before this Hon'ble Court and in this manner a delay of 1716 days has been occurred in filing the present petition.” Notice of the application was given. Reply to the application has been filed, wherein averments made in the application are denied. Averments made in para 5 of the application, that the delay has occurred due to ill advice, cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by this Court in The United India Insurance Company Vs. Subash Chander Gupta and others, 1988(2) PLR 237 and Ranjit Singh and others Vs. Rali Kaur and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 642. In view of settled law, it has to be held, that the application does not disclose sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the application is dismissed. RFA No. 2403 of 2008, CMs No. 5112-CI, 5113-CI and 5115-CI of 2008 Keeping in view, that the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, the appeal is dismissed as time barred. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 24, 2009 R.S.