RSA No. 2167 of 2007 (O&M) --1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2167 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 3.2.2009 Gurdial Singh .......... Appellant Versus Hardial Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) Along with regular second appeal two applications i.e. C.M. No. 6166-C of 2007 and C.M. No. 6165-C of 2007, have been filed for condonation of delay of 190 days in filing the appeal and 376 days in refiling the appeal. The grounds taken for condonation of delay in filing the appeal read as under :- 2. That the appellant is an old age and poor person. He is issueless. Due to this reason, he could not take timely steps to file the present appeal.l 3. That the delay of 190 days is not intentional but has occurred for the bonafide reason explained above.” and that for condoning the delay in refiling the appeal read as under : “2. That the said appeal was refiled after removing RSA No. 2167 of 2007 (O&M) --2- the objections on 26.9.2006. 3. That now the appeal is being refiled alongwith the application. In this manner the delay of days in refiling has occurred. 4. That it is in the interest of justice that the delay of 376 days in refiling the appeal be condoned.” Both the applications do not disclose any reason, whatsoever, muchless sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing or refiling the appeal. 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. The appellant further failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, both the applications are ordered to be dismissed. RSA No. 2167 of 2007 Dismissed as time barred. 3.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE