CM No.9313-CII of 2008 in/and -1- FAO No.1444 of 2008 (O&M) ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.9313-CII of 2008 in/and FAO No.1444 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:26.10.2010. M/s Jai Ambe Rice Mill ...Appellant Versus The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short “CPC”] for condonation of delay of 170 days in filing of the appeal. Admittedly, as per the averments made in para No.2 of the application, the order was pronounced by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur on the objection filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short “the Act”] on 01.06.2007. Certified copy of the order was applied on 07.06.2007 which was made available on 18.06.2007. The period of limitation, after deducting the period spent in getting the certified copy of the order, was up to 16.09.2007. However, the present appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Act on 03.03.2008. The reason assigned in CM No.9313-CII of 2008 in/and -2- FAO No.1444 of 2008 (O&M) ****** the application is that the applicant/appellant was under the impression that their objection is still pending before the learned District Judge. However, on inquiry, they found that the Clerk of the counsel for the appellant had posted a letter to the applicant/appellant by ordinary post, but the said letter was not received and the letter posted by the counsel for the applicant/appellant in the Trial Court or by his Clerk was lost in transit. This Court is not ready to subscribe to the explanation given. Hence, I do not find any sufficient cause in this application for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, which results into dismissal of the main appeal as well. October 26, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE