SA/130/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 3096 UK

             Office Notes,
                reports,
               orders or
             proceedings
SL.
      Date   or directions                          COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                  and
              Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                             S.A. No. 130 of 2023
                             Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

                                      Mr.       Himanshu        Pal,      counsel     for    the
                             appellant/applicant.

2. Present appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2014 passed by District Judge, Haridwar in O.S. No. 13 of 2008, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff as well the judgment and order dated 05.11.2022 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Haridwar in F.A. No. 01 of 2015, whereby the appeal filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed.

3. There is 243 days delay in filing the appeal.

4. The Delay Condonation Application (IA 1 of 2023) has been filed along with the affidavit for condoning the inordinate delay of 243 days with the averments that appellant had no arrangement of money to file the present second appeal and when he arranged the same then he immediately approached the Court.

5. The reason stated in the delay condonation application reveals no satisfactory or reasonable explanation as to constitute sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgment has held that only if the reasons are genuine and acceptable, then alone, such huge delay are to be condoned and not otherwise. The condonation of delay cannot be a routine affair. A person, who is not vigilant, is not entitled for the relief after a prolonged period. It is well considered principle of law that while condoning the delay, more specifically, enormous delay, the Courts have to consider the genuinity of the reasons furnished by the person seeking condonation of delay.

6. In view of the fact that the appellant/applicant could not establish any acceptable reason for the purpose of condoning the long delay of 243 days, this Court is not inclined to consider the delay condonation application. The delay condonation application is hereby rejected.

7. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 12.10.2023 Mamta