GURDIP KAUR Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this application, delay of 532 days in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned. The only ground mentioned in para No. 2 is that earlier appellant was advised by her counsel not to prefer any separate appeal and take up the plea regarding genuineness of the sale deed in the appeal preferred by respondent No. 2. It is stated that, now the learned counsel has changed his opinion and the present appeal has been preferred. This averment does not. inspire confidence of the Court. Neither the name of the counsel, nor the time when the earlier advice was given and when second advise was given and necessity of second advice, is indicated. Other side has opposed this application. It is clearly indicated that the appellant was party before the Lower Appellate Court and he never applied for the copy of the judgment within time. Even, in the other appeal, preferred by other defendants-respondents, being R.S.A. No. 3045 of 2005, the present appellant was served long back and she initiated no steps to file the appeal.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the appellant has appeared before the First Appellate Court and also in the other appeal R.S.A. No. 3045 of 2005 in Oct., 2006. Otherwise also, the judgment impugned was announced by the Appellate Court in her presence but no steps were taken by the appellant to prefer appeal within time. The ground of legal advise also does not seem to be valid ground. I do not find any reason to condone such an inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. This application for condonation of delay is, accordingly, dismissed and consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. . <span class='hidden-print'> ( <a href='Judgement.aspx?q=Indian Civil Cases]2008]1]&p=1&pos=49&qType=4'>Previous</a> <a href='Results.aspx?q=Indian Civil Cases]2008]1]&p=1&rsv=C&qType=4'>Hitlist</a> <a href='Judgement.aspx?q=Indian Civil Cases]2008]1]&p=1&pos=51&qType=4'>Next</a> ) </span>