KARNAIL SINGH Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed by Karnail Singh, plaintiff, challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, vide which the trial Court had dismissed his suit and the Lower Appellate Court had dismissed the Appeal, filed by him.

(2.) This Appeal was filed on 26-4-2000, within limitation. However, on the same day, it was returned by the office with the objections that the power of attorney and fair typed copies of the judgments should be complete, the opening sheet should be filed properly and vernacular of affidavit should be attested. It was re-filed on 16-8-2000, with the remarks that the same was being re-filed, after compliance. The office again raised the objections dated 16-8-2000 that the objections dated 26-4-2000 has still not been complied with and that application regarding delay in re-filing, after 40 days, should be filed. Thereafter, the Appeal was re-filed on 17-5-2002 along with an application under S. 151, CPC, for condonation of 698 days delay in re-filing the Appeal. This application was accompanied by the affidavit of Shri Naresh Kumar, Clerk to Shri Pritam Chand Rakra, Advocate.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before me that since the Appeal was originally filed in this Court within the prescribed period of limitation, any delay in re-fling the Appeal would be of no consequence. Reliance has been placed on Babu Singh v. M. C. Ropar 2001 (2) Pun LR 747. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Under Rule 5 of Chapter 1, Part 'A' of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume 5, an Appeal, which was returned by the office with the various objections, referred to above, on 26-4-2000, was required to be re-filed, after removing those objections, within 40 days. The Appeal was re-filed after the expiry of said period of 40 days. Without any application for extending the time for refiling the Appeal. Furthermore, even the objections, raised by the office, had not been complied with and it was wrongly stated that the Appeal was being re-filed, after compliance. The office again returned the Appeal with the objections that the earlier objections had not been complied with and secondly, necessary application for extending the time for re-filing the Appeal after 40 days, should be filed. This time, the Appeal was re-filed almost after one year and nine months of the return of the Appeal, second time. While re-filing the Appeal and removing the objections, an application under S. 151, CPC, was filed, seeking condonation of 698 days delay in re-filing the Appeal.