Regular Second Appeal No. 2208 of 2006(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2208 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision : May 10, 2011 Bhagti Devi ....Appellant versus Mahavir Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. RS Rana, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. DS Adlakha, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 to 4 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 5399.C of 2006 This is application by appellant for condonation of delay of 635 days in refiling the appeal. It is alleged in the application that the appeal was filed on 5.7.2004 but the Registry raised objections on 6.7.2004 and returned the appeal. Thereafter appellant's counsel shifted his residence- cum-office and in the process the paper book of the appeal was put in the brief of some admitted case. This fact came to the notice of the counsel when the Clerk of the counsel was arranging the office. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Regular Second Appeal No. 2208 of 2006(O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the averments made in the application. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that no sufficient ground for condonation of long delay of 635 days in refiling the appeal is made out. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in Bhagwana versus Tara Chand and others, 2008(2) PLR 73. I have considered the rival contentions. There are only vague and general averments in the application that the file was misplaced while shifting office-cum-residence of the counsel. However, it has not even been pleaded as to when the counsel shifted his residence-cum-office nor it has been pleaded as to when the missing file of the case was retrieved by the Clerk of the counsel and when this fact came to the knowledge of the counsel. There is also no affidavit filed in support of the averments made in the application. Thus, the averments made in the application remain completely unsubstantiated. Apart from it, even if the averments made in the application are taken at face value, the same are not sufficient to make out a ground much less sufficient ground for condonation of long delay of almost 21 months in refiling the appeal. On the contrary, very vague and general averments have been made in the application and the same cannot be accepted to condone long delay of 635 days in refiling the appeal. In the case of Bhagwana (supra) also similar plea had been taken that the file was misplaced when the advocate was shifting the office. In that case some affidavit had also been filed in support of application. However, delay of 688 days in refiling the appeal was not condoned in that case. Said Regular Second Appeal No. 2208 of 2006(O&M) -3- judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. No ground much less sufficient ground for condoning delay of 635 days in refiling the appeal is made out from the averments made in the application. If such long delay is condoned without there being any ground much less sufficient ground for condoning the same, the law of limitation would stand repealed by judicial order but this cannot be done. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant application which is accordingly dismissed. RSA No. 2208 of 2006 Since delay in refiling the appeal has not been condoned, the appeal is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 10, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'