Alok Singh, J.

1 Heard.

2 Undisputedly, the appeal was filed in the year 1982. Memo of appeal does not contain substantial questions of law as required under Section 100(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court vide order dated 24.5.1982, issued notices to the respondents. The order does not show that appeal was ever admitted. However, learned counsel for the appellants states that as per the normal practice of this Court, the aforesaid order amounts to admission of the appeal. Be it as the case may be, no substantial question of law has been formulated by this Court. In RSA No. 888 of 1982 Kartar Singh and another Vs. Tulsi (died), decided on 17.2.2010, same controversy arose. In paras No. 3 to 9 thereof, this Court has observed as under --

3 She further stated that non formulation of substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal as well as at the time of admitting the appeal was because of dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter Ganpat v. Smt. Ram Devi reported in 1978 P&H 137. It was stated by both the Counsel that judgment passed by the Full Bench in the matter of Ganpat (supra) was overruled by the Hon-ble Apex Court in the matter of Kulwant Kaur and others v. Gurdial Singh Mann (dead) by LRs and others reported in 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 277 - AIR 2001 S.C. 1273. Hence, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that after the judgment of the Hon-ble Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Kaur (supra), appellants should not be suffered for no fault of them and must be permitted to rectify the mistake by invoking Rule 2 or Order 41 C.P.C.

4 I have given my serious thought to the argument of learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. Undisputedly, judgment of Apex Court in Kulwant Kaur (supra) came in the year 2001. No step was taken by the appellant in nine years to formulate substantial questions of law in the memo of appeal by moving amendment in view of change of law. There should be some limit of negligence. Law does not help those who do not help themselves. Appellants were sleeping over the appeal for last nine years and now when appeal is being taken up, learned Counsel for the appellants started arguing that since appeal was admitted in the year 1982 without formulating substantial questions of law. hence, this Court should formulate questions of law now without insisting formulation of questions of law in the memo of appeal or in any case, by permitting the appellants, to formulate substantial questions of law in the memo of appeal by way of amendment.

5 Learned Counsel for the appellants has not moved any application seeking permission to amend the memo of appeal incorporating substantial questions of law and additional grounds therein under Rule 2 of Order 41 C.P.C.

6 Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bikram Dass v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab, Chandigarh and others reported in AIR 1975 P&H1(1), has ruled that memorandum of appeal can be rejected at the subsequent stage also i.e. even after admission of appeal.

7 Rule 10 of Volume I Chapter 14 Part B of Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Order reads as under --

10. Amendment after admission - When an appeal has been registered and a date has been fixed for hearing, the petition cannot be returned for amendment. The appeal must be disposed of in the regular manner by dismissal, or by a judgment affirming, varying or reversing the decree of the lower Court. If the appellant should desire to urge any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, he can, under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, do so only with the permission of the Court and such permission should ordinarily be applied for in writing some time before the date fixed for the hearing, under Order XLI Rule 12, of the Code, in order that the respondent may have sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground, without the necessity of a postponement."

8 The same issued came before me in t