COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT iingie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshniukh, v. Aaoellanl i+;H S. A. Lalman, AdoDted Son of Lste Pannalai, Aged about 38 years, By Caste Cher.'a, Resident of Viiiage Kudargarh, R.N.M. Odigle, P.S.Bhiayathan, Tahsi! Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) V^rsinJ Ram Lal, Age 58 years, S/o Lats Chaga! Lai, By Caste Cherva (Adivas!) Surat LaS, Aged 55 ysars, S/'o Late jai Lal, By Caste Cherva (Adivasi), Both the above are resident of Viils.ge Kudargarh, R.N.M. Odigie, P.S.Bhiayathan, Tahsi! Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) Ths State of Chhattisaarh throuah the ColSector, Ambikapur, District Surguja ^ r~i \ 1<-'.'-'.) Memo of Secorid ADDeal under Section 100 of ths Code of Clvii Procedure. "reseni Shrl J.A.Lc'h£rii.counssl forths SDQsllsnt. (Passed on this 25'" dav of Auaust, Heard on I.A.No.1, which is an application for condonation ofdelay in filing this appea!. (2) This second appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts be!pw. Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed by the Civil Judge Ciass !1, Surajpur in Civii Suit No.102-A/2003 vide judgment and decree dated 23-08-2005. Appea! preferred by the piainiiff was aiso dismissed by the 2 Additlonai District Judge, (F.T.C.), Surajpur vide judgment and decres dated 10-08-2007 in Civil Appeal N0.66-A/2005. (^-en^lj ^ ^, ..^s?%, 1 —1. (3) It is not disputed in this second appeal that the sppelianVpiaintiff was represented by counsel in both ths Courts be!ow. I* is a!so not disputed that the copy ofjudgment deiivsred by the iower appelists Court on 10-08-2007, was applied for on 13-08-2007 and was received on 20-08-2007. (4) The only ground urged by learned counssl for the appel'ant in the app'ication for condonation of delay in fiilng this appeal is that he was unswars of the judgment delivered by both ths Courts beiow as ths counse! did not inform him. This second appeal was preferred on 23-07-2008. !t appears that the appeSlant/plaintiff was in compiete s'umber from 20-08-2007 i.e., the date on whlch the copy of judgment of ths iower ssppeiiats Coiirt was received, for a psriod of aimost one ysar. Affidavit of the counssl, who had appeared for the appelianfplaintif? 1" both the Courts below, has aiso not been filed. In thls view of ths matter, ! am of the considersd opinion that no sufficient cause Tor the inordinate delay in filing thls appsa! hss besn expiained. (5) Consequentiy, the appllcation (LA.No.1) for condonation of de'ay in fiiing this appeal is dismissed. As s resu't thereof, the appea! also stands dismisssd as barrsd by limitation. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge