^PAGE Nq^j- ^ IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FirstAppealNo. \^ /2011 sin^>BenCtl (FIRST APPEAL U/S 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908). ^ p, ^-"-T"4"^ [VERSUS Q ^ APPELLANT/ (Defendant No.l in the Court below). .^^lslu—^ ^^^'T^S^^ ..^n^oby^—— RESPONDENTS: (Plaintiff in the Courtj Below). (Defendant No.2 in the Court below). 1. 2. Ratan Lal S/o Rajaram (a) Bolo| Suryavanshi, aged about 48 years, R/o| Village: Kuthur, Tahsil: Navagarh, Dist:| Janjgeer-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Laxmiprasad S/o Ramkumar SuryavanshiJ aged about 41 years, R/o Village: KuthurJ Tahsil: Navagarh, District: Janjgeer-] Champa, Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector,[ Janjgeer, District: Janjgeer-Champa,| Chhattisgarh. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN^» ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS First Appeal No. 193 of %)11 Ratan Lal V6RSUS Laxmiprasad & another (Firstappeal U/s 96 ofthe Code ofCivM Procedure, 1908) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri MK Baeg, Advocate for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 26.09.2011) 1. Heard on IA No. 1, application for condonation of 989 days delay in filing the present appeal. 2. This js defendants' first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa (CG) in Civil Suit No. 55-A/2007. 3. Brief facts of the are : plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendan^appellant. The trial court granted decree of refund of Rs. 75,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum jn favour of plaintiff. As per judgment and decree, if amount is not paid by the appellant/defendant within a period of three months, the respondent/plaintiff has to execute the sale deed. 4. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant along wlthin application under Order 44 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for preferring appeal as indigent person which is hopelessly barred by 989 days. The grounds taken in the ,^SS-"!^J, "^ :y 'w' '^ Y ^/ "^-....^..^' ^t. ^^» application is that due to poverty he could not pay the fees of his counsel. 5. Indisputably, this appeal has been preferred without payment of court fee. The appellant could have approached Legal Services Authority for legal assistance. Nothing has been done in this regard. 6. Shri Baeg, counsel for the appellant also could not substantiate the grounds taken in the applteation. It is trite law each da^ of delay occurred in filing the appeal has to be explained. 7. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendarrt without assigning any reason whatsoever for the huge detay occurred in flling the appeal. In absence of sufficient cause shown by the appellant, the delay cannot be condoned. 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, IA No. 1, application for condonation of 989 days delay In flling the appeal, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu