M. K. Chawla ( 1 ) ALONGWITH the main S. A. O. , the appellants have filed this application (CM 39/89) u/s 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay in refiling this appeal. Delay is more than 11 months in refiling the appeal. This application is supported by the affidavit of counsel for the appellant. The delay is sought to be explained that the file of the case was misplaced in the bundle of decided cases and came to the knowledge of the counsel only after some files were required to be discovered from those papers. Contention is appeal was filed within limitation but it was returned for removing certain objections and thereafter the file was misplaced and the appeal could not be filed within the time allowed. The further contention is that once the appeal has been filed within the limitation then the refiling of the appeal cannot be dismissed as time-barred.- It can only be rejected under Order 41 Rule 3 CPC. per 7972 PLR 241, wherein under similar circumstances, the learned Judge condoned the delay in refiling the appeal. I do not agree. ( 2 ) OBJECTIONS pointed by the Registry were not only formal but substantive in nature. One of the objections was that the certified copy of the lower court was not duly stamped. Rule 13 of Chapter I (High Court Rules and Orders), Vol. V specifically lays down that the improperly stamped documents remain invalid unless filed through mistake and time extended for making up the deficiency. In this case, no such application was moved nor any order from the court was sought. Respondent has relied upon Smt. Parvati vs. Anand Parkash, AIR 1987 Delhi, 90, wherein there was 8 months delay in refiling the appeal. The sum and substance of that Judgment reads : "s. 5 of the Limitation Act would not be attracted to a case where an appeal/objection has been initially filed within the prescribed period of limitation and the same does not suffer from any infirmity of a vital nature but there is delay in refiling the appeal after removing the defects as pointed out by the Deputy Registrar. The rigours of law of limitation regarding condonation of delay would not apply to such a situation and the court has simply to satisfy itself that there is a plausible explanation for the delay. The rigours of law of limitation regarding condonation of delay would not apply to such a situation and the court has simply to satisfy itself that there is a plausible explanation for the delay. But it cannot be said that there is no sanction behind R. 5 (1) of Punjab High Court Rules and Orders and the Court will be powerless to reject the memorandum of appeal or impose any other appropriate penalty if the appellant behaves in a totally negligent, reckless or erratic manner in not refiling the appeal after removing the defects within a reasonable time. Thus where the appellants took nearly nine months in refiling the appeal and no explanation for this inordinate delay except a vague averment that the file was misplaced was forthcoming the appeal was liable to be rejected. " ( 3 ) IT fairly and squarely applies to present case. Application (and S. A. O.) dismissed.