RSA No.220 of 2009 19.5.2011 Present:- Mr. Vinod Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Mr. G.R.Palsra, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. RSA No. 220 of 2009, CMP(M) No. 394 of 2009 & CMP(M) Nos. 507 and 508 of 2010. CMP(M) No. 394 of 2009 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal which according to the Registry is barred by 6 years and 24 days. 2. CMP(M) No. 507 of 2010 is an application for setting aside abatement and bringing on record legal representatives of respondent No.3 died on 27.8.2006. CMP(M) No. 508 of 2010 is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing CMP(M) No. 507 of 2010. The respondents have opposed all these applications. 3. In CMP(M) No. 394 of 2009, it has been stated that the applicant/appellant had earlier engaged one Mr. Vikas Chandla, Advocate for filing appeal in the High Court in the month of December, 2004. The appeal was drafted but the same was not filed in the High Court. The applicant came to the High Court in the year 2007 to know the status of the appeal. The applicant was told that his counsel Mr. Vikas Chandla, Advocate had left practice for the last three years. The applicant contacted the present counsel in November, 2008 who advised her to bring certified copies of the lower Courts judgments. The judgments of the lower courts were supplied in the second week of November, 2008 but the other relevant documents for filing the appeal were - 2 - not supplied. The applicant re-constructed the entire case file and she came to Shimla in February, 2009. The High Court was closed on account of Winter Vacation. The applicant again came to Shimla on 13.3.2009 but again could not contact her counsel. The appeal was ultimately prepared on 8.5.2009 and filed on 11.5.2009. 4. The explanation given by the applicant in CMP(M) No. 394 of 2009 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal cannot be believed and it is apparently not correct in view of the material on record. The impugned judgment is dated 17.1.2003. According to the applicant, she earlier approached Mr. Vikas Chandla, Advocate in December, 2004. On the date when applicant allegedly approached Mr. Vikas Chandla, Advocate in December, 2004, her appeal was already time barred inasmuch as the applicant allegedly approached Mr. Vikas Chandla, Advocate after about 1 year and 11 months for filing the appeal. There is no explanation why the applicant had not taken any steps for filing the appeal within the period of limitation or within reasonable time after the limitation. There is nothing on record except the bald statement of the applicant that she approached Mr. Vikas Chandla, Advocate in December, 2004 for filing the appeal and such Advocate had left the practice. 5. In para 3 of the application, it has been stated that the applicant was advised by her present counsel in the month - 3 - of November, 2008 to bring certified copies of the judgments of the lower Courts. The application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment dated 17.1.2003 annexed with the appeal was applied on 29.9.2008 about two months earlier when the present counsel advised the applicant to bring certified copies of the judgments. In other words, even before contacting the present counsel, the applicant had already applied for obtaining certified copy of the judgment dated 17.1.2003. It has not been explained under what circumstances the applicant had already applied on 29.9.2008 certified copy of the judgment dated 17.1.2003 when she had not met the present counsel at that time. 6. The certified copy of the lower Court judgment annexed with the present appeal was delivered on 1.10.2008 and the present appeal was filed on 11.5.2009 after about seven and half months. No legally acceptable explanation has been given for explaining the delay for not filing the appeal immediately when certified copy of judgment dated 17.1.2003 was already delivered to the applicant on 1.10.2008. 7. The record shows that the applicant has taken false pleas and the application is not bonafide. No plausible explanation has been given for condonation of delay in filing the appeal which is barred by more than six years. During that period vested rights accrued in favour of the other side which - 4 - cannot be ignored lightly. Thus, seen from any angle, the applicant has failed to make out any case for condonation of delay. Accordingly, this application is dismissed, resultantly CMP(M) No.507 of 2010 and CMP(M) No. 508 of 2010 are also dismissed. RSA No. 220 of 2009 In view of dismissal of CMP (M) No. 394 of 2009, the present appeal also stands disposed of. May 19, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge