O R D E R

By way of this application, the applicant-appellant has prayed for condoning the delay of 10 years and 29 days’ in filing the instant appeal. It is averred in the application that the entire case file was got misplaced and after hard efforts, the same was traced on 16.12.2014 and on the same day the appeal was prepared and drafted. Thereafter, on the next day, the appeal was filed. It is further averred that delay of 10 years and 29 days’ in filing the appeal is not intentional, but due to the reasons stated in the application. It is lastly prayed that the application be allowed.

2. Reply to the application has been filed by non- applicant/respondent No.1. In the preliminary submissions, it has been averred that the present appeal preferred by applicant-appellant, Hoshiar Singh, against the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2004, passed by learned MACT (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, (in short ‘MACT’) was barred by limitation and applicant-appellant has not disclosed the complete material facts, as such he is guilty of suppressio-veri. It is further submitted that applicant/-appellant was very much aware of the facts and the entire case file was also in his exclusive possession. Pursuant to award dated 9.8.2004, it was decided and conveyed by the department i.e. non- applicant/respondent No.1 to the applicant-appellant (Hoshiar Singh) to make good of 50% of the award amount of Rs. 1,29,020/-. The aforesaid decision of recovery on the part of the State was challenged by the applicant-appellant before the erstwhile Tribunal and he obtained interim order in his favour. It is further submitted that detailed reply, to the Original Application, was filed on behalf of the State and subsequently after abolition of the erstwhile Tribunal, it was transferred to this Court and re-registered as CWP (T) No. 12512/2008. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 28.04.2011, by holding that there is no illegality in the order of recovery and directed that the recovery be effected from the account of the applicant-appellant herein, in a manner, which does not put the applicant-appellant under undue financial burden.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with judgment dated 28.04.2011, applicant-appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal No.

314/2011 before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court.

4. It is further submitted that the aforesaid letters patent appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, vide order dated 12.10.2011 reserving liberty to the present applicant-appellant to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The applicant- appellant remained reluctant and did not challenge the award dated 09.08.2004, passed by the learned MACT for years together and it was only in the year 2014, he woke up from his slumber and filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which is not legally permissible.

5. It is further submitted that the reasons given by the applicant-appellant for condoning the delay in filing the instant appeal are neither just and proper to substantiate his claim to condone the delay, nor the reasons so given are based on the facts on record, so the application deserves to be dismissed.

6. On merits, it is submitted that the contents with regard to filing of the above appeal are not disputed, however, it is submitted that the above appeal being hopelessly time barred, so the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. There are no sufficient and plausible grounds taken by the applicant-appellant in his application for condoning the delay of more than 10 years. Moreover, the applicant- appellant has not applied certified copy of entire file from Registry of learned MACT and no steps, whatsoever, have been taken to procure the case file, nor it is stated in the application. Thus he cannot be allowed to use the authority of law, as per his own choice, convenience and suitability. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal so filed by the appli