JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No. 2268 of 2009 This is application by appellant for condonation of delay of 01 year, 06 months and 12 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that counsel for the applicant-appellant in the lower appellate court kept on wrongly telling the appellant and his father that the first appeal was pending, although first appeal had been decided on 19.12.2002. Ultimately, on 29.03.2004, the appellant and his father seriously asked the counsel about the first appeal and the name of the Judge, before whom the first appeal was pending. After the appellant’s counsel in the lower appellate court went away, his Clerk told the appellant and his father that the first appeal stood dismissed on 19.12.2002. Thereafter, appellant’s father applied for certified copy of appellate order on the same day. It was prepared on 01.04.2004 and received on 05.04.2004. The instant second appeal was filed on 01.07.204. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 3. Counsel for the applicant-appellant reiterated the averments made in the application supported by affidavit. Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of applicant-appellant for condonation of long delay of 01 year, 06 months and 12 days in filing the appeal. 4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 5. Long delay of more than 1-1/2 years cannot be condoned on bald assertion that Advocate of the applicant-appellant in the lower appellate court kept on wrongly telling the appellant and his father that first appeal was still pending. It is not even mentioned in the application that applicant-appellant took any action against the aforesaid Advocate for his action resulting in delay in filing this second appeal. Such bald assertion can be made by any litigant to serve his purpose. Long delay of 01 year, 06 months and 12 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned on such bald assertion. 6. It may be added that even after the appellant and his father allegedly learnt on 29.03.2004 about dismissal of the first appeal, the instant second appeal was not filed promptly, but was filed more than three months thereafter, for which there is no explanation whatsoever. 7. 6. It may be added that even after the appellant and his father allegedly learnt on 29.03.2004 about dismissal of the first appeal, the instant second appeal was not filed promptly, but was filed more than three months thereafter, for which there is no explanation whatsoever. 7. Keeping in view all the circumstances and taking the averments made in the application at face value, I do not find sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of 01 year, 06 months and 12 days in filing the appeal. The application is therefore dismissed. Main Appeal : The appeal is dismissed as time barred. ---------0.B.S.0------------