IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2989 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 20, 2011. Bhagwant Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Swaran Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.8908-C of 2010 There is inordinate delay of 265 days in filing the present appeal. The ground taken for condonation of delay of 265 days in filing the appeal is that dictation was given by the Advocate for the applicant- appellant to his Steno and that however, in the house of steno some construction was going on and the file was misplaced. As soon as the same was located, the present appeal was filed. The application is accompanied by affidavit of the applicant- appellant. The same is not accompanied by affidavit of the said Steno. Vague plea has been taken in the application as it has not been mentioned as to when the dictation was given and who was the Steno and when the same was RSA No.2989 of 2010(O&M) misplaced. There is no explanation as to why applicant-appellant remained silent for such a long period of time. Though courts are liberal in condoning the delay in filing the appeal however, applicant-appellant is required to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 265 days in filing the appeal. Moreover, the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff was decreed by both the courts below and it was held that transfer entry regarding ownership of Tractor No.PBR-8424 dated 06.12.1996 entered and attested by defendant No.5 in the duplicate registration certificate was illegal, null and void qua the rights of the plaintiff and entered in connivance with defendant No.5 and the same was ordered to be cancelled/set aside and plaintiff was also held entitled to declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of Tractor No.PBR- 8424 and the entries regarding the ownership of Tractor No.PBR-8424 were ordered to be corrected in the registration certificate in the name of the plaintiff accordingly and for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of Electric Motor bearing A/c No.RF-417 of 7-1/2 BHP situated in village Rasulpur, Tehsil Bassi Pathana and the entries regarding the ownership of said electric motor connection in the name of defendant No.1 were wrong and the same were ordered to be corrected in the name of the plaintiff. The findings are a matter of fact recorded by both the courts below. It is not a case of misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. Hence, in view of these facts, the present application for condonation of delay of 265 days in filing the present regular second appeal is, hereby, dismissed. RSA No.2989 of 2010 2 RSA No.2989 of 2010(O&M) The present regular second appeal is dismissed as having not been filed within prescribed period of limitation. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 20, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3