CM No.14690-CII-2008 and -1- FAO No.2384 of 2008 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.14690-CII-2008 and FAO No.2384 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 03.05.2010 **** Bikram Singh . . . . Appellant VS. Bhoop Singh and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Madhu Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 231 days in filing of the appeal. Notice in the application was issued to which a reply has been filed in the Court. It is averred in the application that the appellant had entrusted his case to one Narender Kumar, Advocate practicing at Civil Courts, Rewari along with a fee of Rs.5000/- to file the appeal before this Court, who assured him that his friend is a practicing Advocate at Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh through whom his appeal would be filed for the purpose of enhancement of compensation. It is further averred that on his repeated inquiries from Narender Kumar, Advocate about the filing of the appeal, he had told that he need not be worried as his appeal has already been filed but he could not disclose the CM No.14690-CII-2008 and -2- FAO No.2384 of 2008 (O&M) number of the appeal and name of the Advocate through whom the appeal had been filed. On 5.3.2008, the applicant contacted Sh. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate, who enquired from the Registry that no such appeal has been filed in this Court against the order dated 24.5.2007. It is submitted that the applicant/appellant has been cheated by Narender Kumar, Advocate, who after receiving Rs.5000/- from him, on the pretext of engaging counsel at Chandigarh, did not engage anyone and had rather delayed the filing of the appeal. In reply, it is averred that the ground taken in the application is totally irrelevant, baseless and misleading. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no question of condonation of delay on the averments made in the application because no action, whatsoever, has been taken by the applicant/appellant against the said Narender Kumar, Advocate, who could have been prosecuted by the appellant/applicant before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, which is an Apex Body of the Advocates, who issues License to the Advocates to practice and also punish them for their misdeed and mis-conduct in discharge of their duties. If the appellant/applicant was cheated, as stated, he would have definitely at least made a complaint before the Bar Association of which Narender Kumar, Advocate is a member but no such complaint has been made. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has rather stated that the procedure of prosecuting such type of complaints is very cumbersome as the appellant had to come to Chandigarh for this purpose. However, the Court is of the view that blacksheeps in the profession should be identified as soon as possible and should be drawn out of the profession in order to avoid recurrence of such type of unholy CM No.14690-CII-2008 and -3- FAO No.2384 of 2008 (O&M) acts. With these observations, the present application is dismissed. Consequently, present appeal is also dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 30.5.2010 JUDGE Vivek