JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. This application has been preferred for condonation of 4 years 10 months 12 days delay in filing appeal against the judgment dated 31.3.2015 passed by District Judge (Forest), Shimla, in petition RBT No. 1-S/2 of 2013/09 under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 for recovery of amount of 21,96,769/- including up-to-date interest.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings and documents filed therewith.

3. Facts emerging in this case are that applicant-Corporation had filed a petition for recovery on 6.8.2009, which was dismissed on 31.3.2015. In order to file an appeal, copy of impugned judgment was applied on 2.4.2015, which was completed and attested on 10.4.2015 and was received on 17.4.2015. Applicant-Corporation engaged counsel Mr. XXX, Advocate and handed over the papers to him with instruction to prepare and file the appeal. Counsel concerned, after completing the formalities, filed the appeal, and handed over copy thereof, under his signatures, to the Corporation with information that appeal stood filed on 6.7.2015. Photocopy of such appeal alongwith photocopy of impugned order received on 17.4.2015 and photocopy of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 65 days, have been placed on record as Annexure A-1 with this application.

4. Thereafter Corporation continued to inquire about the status of appeal through communications dated 5.10.2015, 16.9.2016, 21.12.2017 and 27.8.2019 sent to the Advocate, photocopies whereof have been placed on record as Annexure A-2. All these letters were received by the Advocate, but he did not respond in writing, however, on telephone assured that as and when matter would be listed, information would be supplied. Perusal of these letters clearly depicts that Corporation was asking the counsel to supply the date of filing of appeal (FAO) and latest status of the case in the Court.

5. Lastly, Corporation was constrained to submit an application to State Public Information Officer, High Court of H.P. to inquire about status of the appeal. In response thereto, State Public Information Officer of High Court has responded as under:

“It is informed that as per record maintained in the Scrutiny Section, FAO filed vide filing number FAOST No. 20276/2015 and CMPMST No. 20851/2015, titled as HPFC vs. M/s Singhasan Restaurant stands returned to Sh. XXXX, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant for removing objections on 31.12.2015, which has not been re-filed as yet.”

6. The information was received by the Corporation on 28.11.2019 and immediately thereafter Corporation again contacted the counsel, but he could not supply information with respect to the appeal which was returned to him by Registry on 31.12.2015 for removing objections.

7. From the information gathered by the Corporation, it was concluded that appeal was not re-filed after removing objections and thus there was no appeal pending and, therefore, Board of Directors of the Corporation, in its meeting, has decided to reserve its right to take legal recourse against the counsel and at the same time took decision to engage other counsel for filing the appeal afresh. Whereupon fresh certified copy of impugned judgment was applied on 24.1.2020, which was completed and attested on 17.2.2020 and was received on opening of the High Court after winter vacation during last week of February, 2020 and thereafter appeal was prepared on 5.3.2020 and filed on 17.3.2020 alongwith this application for condonation of delay.

8. Application has been opposed by filing detailed reply, mainly with objection that appeal had already been filed through another counsel in the year 2015 and, therefore, without disclosing the fate of the said appeal, second appeal would not be maintainable and thus application for condonation of delay in filing second appeal is also not maintainable and further that information under the Right to Information Act wa