HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR IN*i^^. Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. SANo,87012007 Appetlant/ Defendant No.1 Respondents/ Plaintjff& Defendant No.2 & 3 Sundru, aged about 57 years, Dhir Singh Manjh!, R/o Village Late. Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur Versus 1. Ramesh Kumar, aged about 22 years, S/o Janki Prasad Brahmin. 2. Dhani Ram, aged about 38 years, S/o Sundaru Manjhi (Both R/o Village Lata, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG) 3. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, District Raipur (CG) Second appeal under Section 100 ofthe C.P.C. Present: Shri H.V. Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhil Agrawal, PL for the State ORALORDER (Passed on 23.04.2008) Heard on I.A. No.1 for urgent hearing. The matter is taken up on Board. (2) Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 prayed that he has filed an application M.C.P. No.408/2007 for condonation of delay in filing this appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which shouldbeheard. (3) Heard on M.C.P. No.408/2007. There is a delay of 1038 days fn filing the appeal. It is not disputed that the appellant/defendant No.1 was represented by counsei in both the Courts below. The judgment and decree of the tower Appeilate Court was passed on 24.1.2004. The appeal was preferred on 26.2.2007. The only ground shown in the ^N^^ application for condonation of delay is that the appellant had handed over the copy ofjudgment and decree to his son (name not menttoned) for preferring an appeal and the son had misplaced the said copy of the judgment and decree and did not inform the appeliant. Affidavit of the son has not been filed in support of the application. There is no good ground for condonation of the inordinate delay of 1C^8 days in fiiing this appeal. (4) Accordingly. M.C.P. No.408/2007 for condonatton of delay is dismissed as no good ground for condonation of delay has been shown. Priya (5) As a consequence, this second appeal also stands dismissedl. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmokh Judge