RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is again the judgment of learned Single Judge dt. 13.5.1997. It is barred by 1006 days. The only ground given in the application for condonation of delay is that in the first instance the appellants have preferred a Review Petition No. 2807/99 against the order under appeal and having failed in that review application, decided on 9.10.1998, present appeal has been filed.
(2.) HOWEVER we find that this explanation is not reasonable, firstly because filing of an application for review does not stop running of the period of limitation for filing an appeal. Therefore not filing the appeal on the basis of pursuing a review application within limitation, without something more cannot, be considered to be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It is well settled that period during which petition for review is persued is not excluded for computation of the period of the limitation Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Moreover we find that appellants were not diligent even in pursuing the review application inasmuch as the review application itself was barred by 47 days. It appears that recourse to review petition has been taken only to get over the difficulty of having not filed the appeal in time.
(3.) EVEN after giving credit for the period during which appellants have pursuaded remedy of review, the appeal is hopelessly delayed, no explanation whatsoever has been furnished for filing appeal after such inordinate delay. The review petition was dismissed on 9.10.1998. The appeal has been filed only on 14.3.2000, that is to say almost after one and half year after the date of rejection of the review application.;