L.N.MITTAL,J.(ORAL) : - (1.) THIS is application for condonation of delay of 416 days in re- filing the appeal. Heard. It is alleged in the application that the appeal was returned with objections number of times. The paper-book was misplaced when office of counsel for the appellants was shifted due to renovation of his house. The paper-book was inadvertently put in the bundle of decided cases and could not be traced. When bundle of decided cases was searched by the Clerk, then the paper-book was found.
(2.) TAKING the aforesaid averments at face value and on perusal of the file, I find that there is no sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of 416 days in re-filing the appeal. Perusal of the file reveals that appeal was filed on 24.03.2011 and it was returned by the Registry with objections on 06.04.2011, to be re- filed within a week. However, it was re-filed on 04.06.2011 i.e. after more than eight weeks. It was again returned with some objections dated 28.06.2011, but it was re-filed after ten months on 30.04.2012. It was again returned on 01.05.2012 and re-filed on 26.07.2012. There is no explanation whatsoever at all for the delay in first and third re-filing of almost two months each. The delay of almost ten months in second re-filing is also not explained by lame, vague and general excuse that the paper-book was inadvertently put in bundle of decided cases during shifting of office. No dates of shifting of office from one place to another or back have been given. No date of tracing the paper-book has either been mentioned. It is standard excuse for condonation in almost every case of long delay in re- filing the appeal that the brief was wrongly put in bundle of decided cases or admitted cases. Such excuses cannot be accepted to condone long delay of more than one year. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of 416 days in re-filing the instant appeal. If such long delay is condoned without any justification, the law of limitation would become redundant. Accordingly, the application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : The appeal is liable to dismissal as delay in re-filing the appeal has not been condoned. Even otherwise, it is worth mentioning that on application filed by the respondent Financier under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim measure, appellants herein have been directed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide impugned order dated 08.01.2011, to furnish security/bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.6,21,478/- within one month, failing which officials of the Financier Company shall be at liberty to invoke the provisions for taking the vehicle into their custody, with police help, if necessary. However, case of the appellants herein (before the trial court) was that the Financier had already taken possession of the vehicle and had even sold the same. In these circumstances, it is beyond comprehension as to why this appeal has at all been filed by the appellants because the only liberty that has been given to the Financier in case of default of appellants to furnish security/bank guarantee is that the Financier can take possession of the vehicle, but according to the appellants, Financier had already taken possession of the vehicle and had even sold the same. Dismissed.;