Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos.26634-35-CII of 2012 in FAO No.573 of 2009 Date of decision: 21st February, 2014 Karambir Applicant-Appellant Versus Rambir and another Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Navneet Singh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Mr.Ashok Jindal, Addl.
Advocate General, Haryana.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
(ORAL) There is a delay of 1082 days in filing the application seeking recall of the order dated 04.09.2009, vide which this appeal was dismissed in default.
Para Nos.2 and 3 of the application seeking condonation of such a delay read thus: “2.
That the main case was listed for hearing on 4.9.2009 on the last date.
That on the last date prior to 4.9.2009, i.e.on dated 7.8.2009, the main case was ordered to be listed as per roaster.
As there was no actual date fixed for hearing, in the main case, therefore, the case was missed in the cause list.
Though the cause list was daily checked, but by chance the case was missed in the cause list of dated 4.9.2009.
Because of only this Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court CM Nos.26634-35-CII of 2012 in 2 FAO No.573 of 2009 reason the counsel for the appellant could not appear before the Hon'ble Court, on the date fixed for hearing.
3.
That the counsel for the appellant came to know about the dismissal of the case on the ground of non- prosecution, in the fiRs.week of October, 2009 and as the clerk to counsel had misplaced the case file in the office, that thereafter, the case file was searched, but was not found.
Now, a week before, the case file has been located and thereafter, now the application for restoration is being filed.
There is a delay of 1082 days in the filing the application, which is not intentional or deliberate but due to the reason mentioned.”
.
From a perusal of the aforesaid averments made, this Court is of the opinion that the explanation given is not plausible and the same is not accepted.
Thus, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Resultantly, the application seeking recall of the order dated 04.09.2009 is also dismissed being time barred.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE February 21, 2014 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2014.02.24 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court