FAO No.7195 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7195 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 08.12.2010. Ghanshyam Gupta .....Appellant Versus General Public and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.31095-CII of 2010 This is application by appellant-Ghanshyam Gupta for condonation of delay of 725 days in filing the appeal. Anil Kumar Gupta-respondent No.2, who is brother of the applicant-appellant, filed petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act (in short, the Act) for grant of probate and also under Section 278 of the Act for grant of letter of Administration. Applicant- appellant was impleaded as respondent No.4 in the said petition. The petition pertained to Will allegedly executed by Darbari Lal Gupta father of the applicant-appellant. Applicant-appellant filed written statement in the petition in the trial Court and admitted the claim of the petitioner (respondent No.2 herein). Thereafter applicant-appellant absented from the trial Court and was proceeded ex parte. It is now alleged that Sh. Darbari Lal Gupta had placed responsibility on respondent No.2 herein for carrying out the last wish contained in the Will and, therefore, the applicant-appellant did not take any further interest in the matter, although he was supporting the version of respondent No.2-Anil Kumar Gupta. It is also alleged that the FAO No.7195 of 2010 (O & M) -2- applicant-appellant was made to understand that Anil Kumar Gupta had filed appeal against impugned judgment of the trial Court, but on inquiry as to what was happening in the appeal, the applicant-appellant learnt that no appeal had been preferred by Anil Kumar Gupta against impugned judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the applicant- appellant has now filed this appeal resulting in aforesaid delay. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant reiterated the version contained in the application. However, the averments made in the application are not sufficient to condone the long delay of more than 2 years. In fact the very basis of the claim of the applicant-appellant for seeking condonation of such long delay is completely false and unsustainable. It is alleged that the applicant-appellant was made to understand that Anil Kumar Gupta had filed appeal against the impugned judgment of the trial Court, but it is not even mentioned in the application as to who made the applicant-appellant to understand that Anil Kumar Gupta had filed appeal. This is a very vague assertion by the applicant-appellant. Secondly, it is alleged in the application that no appeal has been preferred by Anil Kumar Gupta against the impugned judgment of the trial Court. However, computer report reveals that Anil Kumar Gupta has already preferred FAO No.459 of 2009 against impugned judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, averment of the applicant-appellant that on inquiry, he learnt that no appeal against the impugned judgment has been preferred by Anil Kumar Gupta, is factually incorrect. Perusal of file of FAO No.459 of 2009 reveals that the said appeal already stands admitted vide order dated 16.04.2009. The applicant-appellant is thus seeking condonation of long delay of FAO No.7195 of 2010 (O & M) -3- 725 days on the basis of false averment. No ground much less sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of more than 2 years in filing the appeal is made out. Averments made in the application for the same are completely false and unsustainable. The application is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Main Appeal. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. 08.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE