^1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: ApDlicant Defendant Respondent Plaintgff Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. SecpndAppeal No. 454 of 2006 Ram Babu Singh Gautam, S/o Rambaksh Singh, R/o Nalailnar Post Nakulnar, District Dantewada (CG) Versus M/s. Mahashakti Tyears, Partner Ramratan Khatri, S/o Amolakchand Khafri, aged about 58 years, R/o Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Memo of second appeal under Section 100 of ttie CPC Present: Shri Vivek Rathore, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28.04.2008) Heard on M.C.P. No.1846/2006 for condonation <rf delay in filing this second appeal. (2) The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.7.2005 in chfll appeal No.l-B/2005 was passed by the IV"* Additional Distrtet Jw^e, (FTC) Bastar, Jagdalpur affirming the judgment and decree (toted 17.9.2004 passed in civil Suit No.3-B/2002 by the 1s* Civil Judge, Class-1, Jagdalpur. (3) The trial Court had granted mpney decree for Rs.25,700/- along with inter^t against the appellant/defendant. In the application for condonation of delay in flling the appeal, it has been mentioned that certified copy of the judgment and decree was applied for on 30.7.2(X)5 and was delivered on 23.8.2005; The reason for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation thereafter is shown in para 4 which is as under:- £-;- -a- ^ ^ "4 That, maney cfecree was passed against ff»e appellant ctefendant and he consutted with otlwr Advocates also and due to the various suggesSons and due to fte /acfc af pmcedural kncMtedge and pwcsty of fund, he cauki not prefer the appeal well wWvn the ffme." (4) Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that ttie appellant was represented by counsel in botti the Courts below. (5) I am of the considered opinion that no sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in flling the appeal. The application M.C.P. 18460006 is accordingly dismissed as barred by limitation. As a consequence, second appeal No.454/2006 also stands dismissed as barred by limitation. Priya (6) In view of the above, I.A. No.346/2006 for taking Court fees of Rs.1,970/-, I.A. No.3459/206 for taking Court fees of Rs.947/-, t.A. No.1 for out of turn listing the case and M.C.P. No.1845/20W, which is an application under Order 41 Rule 5 for grant of stay stand disposed or. ' ~ Sd/- \ DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge