Dhara Singh Vs Haryana State and Others

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 19 Sep 2012 Regular Second Appeal No. 4401 of 2010 (O and M) (2012) 09 P&H CK 0373
Bench: Single Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Regular Second Appeal No. 4401 of 2010 (O and M)

Hon'ble Bench

A.N. Jindal, J

Advocates

Pardeep Solath, for the Appellant; Ajay Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the Respondent

Judgement Text

Translate:

A.N. Jindal, J.@mdashThis regular second appeal preferred against the judgments passed by both the courts below, is accompanied by an application for condonation of 829 days'' delay in filing the same. The first appellate court decided the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2006, on 23.1.2008. The appellant had applied for the copy of the judgment which was received by him. The Learned Counsel has urged that the said judgment, which was received by the appellant was lost by Mr. D.S. Punia, Advocate, to whom he had handed over the same for filing the appeal. He again applied for the copy of the judgment on 2.6.2010, which was prepared on 3.6.2010 and received by him on the same date and filed the appeal against the said judgment on 31.7.2010. Thus, he has prayed for condoning the 829 days'' delay which occurred in filing the present appeal.

2. The appellant has not mentioned any date as to when the copy of the judgment was delivered to Mr. D.S. Punia, Advocate and no affidavit of Mr. D.S. Punia, Advocate has been filed in order to support that he had received the copy of the judgment and he misplaced/lost the same. The appellant has also not produced any document pertaining to the communication by him with Mr. D.S. Punia, Advocate in order to support the allegations that he had handed over the said judgment to Mr. D.S. Punia, Advocate. No evidence of obtaining the copy in the year 2006 has also been placed on record.

3. As such, this huge delay of 829 days cannot be condoned.

4. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the accompanying appeal also fails.

From The Blog
Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Read More
Supreme Court Orders Compensatory Plantation on 185 Acres in Delhi Ridge by March 2026
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Orders Compensatory Plantation on 185 Acres in Delhi Ridge by March 2026
Read More