RSA No. 1567 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.4718 C of 2009 in/and RSA No.1567 of 2009 Decided on : 22-04-2009 Kartar Singh and others ....Appellants VERSUS Smt. Rachhpal Kaur ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the appellants MAHESH GROVER, J C.M.No.4718 C of 2009 The present appeal has been filed with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in which the following reason has been stated as a ground for condonation of delay:- “That the appellants were not aware of pronouncement of the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 30.4.2007 as the counsel for the appellants did not communicate this fact to the appellants. The appellants came to know of this fact only from a summon dated 7.2.2009 issued by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Ajnala for execution of the decree dated 30.4.2007 after the receipt of which the appellants applied for certified copy of the judgment on 12.3.2009 which was delivered on 16.3.2009 and, thereafter, the applicants contacted their counsel at Chandigarh on 5.4.2009 and RSA No. 1567 of 2009(O&M) 2 thereafter, the appeal is being filed on reopening of the Court after the vacation period from 3 to 14.4.2009.” The impugned order was passed on 30.4.2007 and the reason which has been given by the applicants-appellants in the given set of circumstances cannot be said to be a reason which can hold good for granting the prayer of the applicants-appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is an inordinate delay of 616 days in filing the appeal which is largely unexplained as, even according to the reason given above, the applicants-appellants are said to have received the summons in execution on 7.2.2009 imparting knowledge of the proceedings to them and yet they applied for certified copy on 12.3.2009 i.e. almost five weeks thereafter from which it could be inferred that the applicants-appellants have not acted with promptitude at all even after coming to know of the decree against them. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellants have been grossly negligent in prosecuting their case and the aforesaid ground cannot not be a valid ground to condone the delay. C.M dismissed. RSA No. 1567 of 2009 Since the appeal is barred by limitation, the same is also hereby dismissed. April 22 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge