An appeal must be filed within the prescribed time unless a satisfactory explanation for delay is provided; ignorance of judgment and missing documents are insufficient reasons.

Order :

1. This appeal is barred by limitation of 323 days.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents has serious objection regarding non-disclosure of reason for condonation of delay in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act .

3. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act contains following statement :

“1. That this appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Pali in Civil Suit No. 135/2010.

2. That the appellant had no knowledge about the said judgment. The counsel for the appellant also did not inform the appellant about the judgment. However, the appellant contacted the counsel, then he was informed that the suit has been dismissed in the month of January, 2018 itself.

3. That thereafter the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment and the same was obtained Immediately thereafter the appellant rushed to Jodhpur and contacted a counsel. The counsel for the appellant advised that some important documents are missing in the record which were not produced before the learned court below, therefore, the appellant should search those documents and collect the same and bring the same.

4. That thereafter the appellant went to Pali and searched the documents and shown to the counsel. Thereafter the memo of appeal was prepared and the same is being filed without any further delay.

5. That in the aforesaid facts and circumstances some delay has occurred in filing the appeal. However, the delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and unintentional. An important question of law is involved in the appeal and the same deserves to be decided on merit.”

4. It is evident that even date of impugned judgment has been wrongly mentioned in Para 1 of the application. There is no mention when the conducting counsel was contacted by the appellant. The conducting counsel also informed that the judgment was passed in January 2018, whereas the impugned judgment was passed on 31.01.2017.

5. The next statement that some documents were missing, therefore, delayed appeal was filed is not acceptable as those documents which were not on the record would have been brought under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. only after filing of the appeal. Since, the application does not contain any explanation, much less satisfactory and acceptable explanation, this appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.