The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with the High Court Rules regarding the refiling of an Appeal within the specified time frame is crucial, and delay without sufficient justification may lead to dismissal of the Appeal.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by Karnail Singh, plaintiff, challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, vide which the trial Court had dismissed his suit and the Lower Appellate Court had dismissed the Appeal, filed by him.

2. This Appeal was filed on 26-4-2000, within limitation. However, on the same day, it was returned by the office with the objections that the power of attorney and fair typed copies of the judgments should be complete, the opening sheet should be filed properly and vernacular of affidavit should be attested. It was re-filed on 16-8-2000, with the remarks that the same was being re-filed, after compliance. The office again raised the objections dated 16-8-2000 that the objections dated 26-4-2000 has still not been complied with and that application regarding delay in re-filing, after 40 days, should be filed. Thereafter, the Appeal was re-filed on 17-5-2002 along with an application under S. 151, CPC, for condonation of 698 days delay in re-filing the Appeal. This application was accompanied by the affidavit of Shri Naresh Kumar, Clerk to Shri Pritam Chand Rakra, Advocate.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before me that since the Appeal was originally filed in this Court within the prescribed period of limitation, any delay in re-fling the Appeal would be of no consequence. Reliance has been placed on Babu Singh V/s. M. C. Ropar 2001 (2) Pun LR 747. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Under Rule 5 of Chapter 1, Part A of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume 5, an Appeal, which was returned by the office with the various objections, referred to above, on 26-4-2000, was required to be re-filed, after removing those objections, within 40 days. The Appeal was re-filed after the expiry of said period of 40 days. Without any application for extending the time for refiling the Appeal. Furthermore, even the objections, raised by the office, had not been complied with and it was wrongly stated that the Appeal was being re-filed, after compliance. The office again returned the Appeal with the objections that the earlier objections had not been complied with and secondly, necessary application for extending the time for re-filing the Appeal after 40 days, should be filed. This time, the Appeal was re-filed almost after one year and nine months of the return of the Appeal, second time. While re-filing the Appeal and removing the objections, an application under S. 151, CPC, was filed, seeking condonation of 698 days delay in re-filing the Appeal.

4. Rule 5 of Chapter 1, Part A of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume 5, reads as under :-

"5. Amendment - (1) The Deputy Registrar may return for amendment and re-filing within a time not exceeding 10 days at a time, and 10 days in the aggregate, to be fixed by him any memorandum of appeal for the reason specified in Order XLI, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. (2) If the memorandum of appeal is not amended within the time allowed by the Deputy Registrar under sub-rule (1) it shall be listed for orders before the Court."

From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that the Appeal was required to be refiled within 40 days. However, in the present case, the Appeal was re-filed after the expiry of 40 days and that too, without complying with the objections. The Appeal was again returned by the office. This time, the Appeal was filed after more than 11/2 years.

5 The authority 2001 (2) PLR 747 (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the reported case, the Appeal was filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, dismissing the Appeal in default, for non-appearance by anyone on behalf of the appellant. The Second Appeal was filed in this Court within limitation, but without a copy of the decree-sheet of the Lower Appellate Court. Various objections were raised by the office