In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh LPA No. 276 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: March 10, 2009 PSEB and another ... Appellants Vs. Surinder Pal Kaur ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This L.P.A. arising out of the judgment dated 17.12.2007, being delayed by 230 days, is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The impugned order was passed on 17.12.2007, thereafter, a clarificatory order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.3.2008. However, this L.P.A. was filed after an expiry of period of 230 days i.e. on 1.9.2008. The explanation submitted by the appellants appears to be unsatisfactory as initially the letters were written for seeking guidance whether the judgment is to be implemented. Then after obtaining orders on clarificatory application, legal section of P.S.E.B. Patiala vide memo No.1444 dated 9.7.2008 advised for filing L.P.A. therefore, this delay of 230 days' is sought to be condoned on the aforesaid grounds. Heard. Since the appellants were in full knowledge of the ordinary period of limitation for filing LPA and no effective steps were taken towards that side, but instead it shifted the track, as such, the LPA No. 276 of 2008 (O&M) -2- *** aforesaid reasons cannot be treated as sufficient for condoning the delay. That apart, we have been informed that the impugned judgment has already been implemented. It is also informed that a Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment, passed in a connected case, involving similar points has been dismissed by the Apex Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed on both the counts. (Uma Nath Singh) (A.N. Jindal) Judge Judge March 10, 2009 deepak