REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.344 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.344 of 2011(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 31 st MARCH, 2011 Mehar Ram @ Ram Mehar .... Appellant Versus Krishan Bal & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Panwar, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.951-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.952-C of 2011 This is application by appellant Mehar Ram @ Ram Mehar for condonation of delay on 3157 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged that during the pendency of the first appeal, appellant herein suffered paralysis and remained under treatment of various doctors. Consequently, he was unable to know the fate of the first appeal. Krishan Bal-respondent No.1 herein, who was appellant in the first appeal, also did not make any interference in peaceful possession of the appellant during the intervening period. Consequently, appellant herein was under the impression that first appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein must have been dismissed. Appellant herein is still under treatment, but in first week of December, 2010, respondent No.1 herein started interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property in the guise of judgment and decree dated 26.02.2002 passed by the first appellate court and, REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.344 of 2011(O&M) -2- therefore, appellant herein learnt about the said judgment and decree and after obtaining certified copies thereof, filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant reiterated the averments contained in the application and also referred to treatment documents Annexure A-1 collectively. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find myself completely unable to accept the same. The application is most frivolous and meritless. The applicant-appellant has not even disclosed as to when he suffered paralysis. First treatment document placed on record is dated 06.03.2002 whereas first appeal was decided by the lower appellate court prior to it on 26.02.2002. Even treatment document dated 06.03.2002 is of out door treatment by Ayurvedic Doctor. It does not show disability of such a kind as to completely immobilize the appellant herein or to make him completely disabled to even find out the fate of the first appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein. On the contrary, in these days of fast means of communication, even if the appellant had suffered paralysis, even then he could remain in touch with his counsel to know the fate of the appeal. Moreover, the appellant could not have just imagined that first appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 herein had been dismissed. The appellant herein could at least enquire and verify it from his counsel in the lower appellate court. It is apparent that the appellant herein was aware that the first appeal must have been decided, but presumed that it had been dismissed. However, since he was aware that first appeal must have been decided, he should have enquired about its fate from his counsel in the lower appellate court. The appellant could not have waited for almost nine years after REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.344 of 2011(O&M) -3- the decision of the first appeal to enquire about its fate and that too, on alleged interference by respondent No.1 herein. Even otherwise, respondent No.1 herein would not have remained silent for almost nine years after the decision of the first appeal in his favour. In addition to it, the suit was filed by appellant herein and his brother Suresh Kumar (proforma respondent No.2 herein) jointly. They both were also represented by common counsel in the lower appellate court. There is not even a word as to why appellant's brother also could not know about the fate of the first appeal and could not inform the appellant herein. As noticed hereinbefore, the application is most frivolous and meritless. Even after taking into consideration the liberal approach being followed by courts in such matter, such long delay of more than eight and half years cannot be condoned on such bald, vague, general and specious averments which are inherently and intrinsically unacceptable to condone such long delay. If such long delay is condoned in this manner, then the very purpose of prescribing limitation period would be completely defeated and frustrated and the law of limitation would become infructuous. For the reasons aforesaid, the application being frivolous and meritless is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the registry of this Court. If the cost amount is not deposited within two months, the case shall be listed for this purpose. Main Appeal Appeal is dismissed being time bard. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 31st March, 2011 'raj'