RFA No.3323 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.3323 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 01.12.2010 Ramrati and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Kartar Singh Malik-I, Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.8162-CI of 2010 This is application for condonation of delay of 802 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that counsel for the appellants/landowners in the reference Court advised them that they could file appeal after decision in first appeal preferred by the State against judgment/award of the reference Court and in view thereof, the appellants did not file the appeal earlier having faith in the said advice. However, when the appellants contacted their present counsel in the High Court for appearing in appeal preferred by the State, then they were advised by the present counsel to file the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellants reiterated the ground taken in the application as mentioned above. I have carefully considered the same. The ground pleaded in the application is patently untenable. No Advocate of any worth would RFA No.3323 of 2010 (O & M) -2- give any such advice that appeal by landowners could be filed only after decision of State appeal. It is apparent that the appellants/landowners were satisfied with the award of the reference Court, but when they engaged counsel in the appeal preferred by the State, then the said counsel apparently persuaded the appellants to file the instant appeal. It is also worth mentioning that before the Reference Court, the landowners were represented by S/Sh. J. S. B. Goyal, A. S. Saini, Ramesh Jain and R. K. Sheokand, Advocates, but in the instant application, the appellants have alleged that they had been given advice by Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhull, Advocate that appeal could be filed by the landowners/appellants after decision of State appeal. There was no occasion for the appellants to contact Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhull, Advocate for seeking any such advice when he was not even their counsel in the Reference Court. On the contrary, in the ordinary course, the appellants would have taken advice from the counsel, who represented them in the reference Court. The averments made in the application are thus completely unsustainable and not even a remote cause is made out for condoning the long delay of 802 days i.e more than 2 years and 2 months. It is correct that Courts are liberal in the matter of condonation of delay. However, even liberal approach cannot be stretched to an extent as to make the law of limitation completely redundant and futile. If long delay of more than 2 years and 2 months is condoned without there being any good ground, the law of limitation would become infructuous. Ground pleaded in the instant application is too vague, general and specious that the same is intrinsically and inherently untenable for condonation of long delay of 802 days. RFA No.3323 of 2010 (O & M) -3- For the reasons aforesaid, the instant application is dismissed. Main Appeal. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. 01.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE