SA/89/2019
2023 Latest Caselaw 3185 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. 89 of 2019
                             Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Gaurav Goswami proxy counsel for Mr. Piyush Garg, counsel for the respondents.

2. The present second appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2015 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 34/2008, whereby the court below dismissed the suit for declaration as well as for permanent injunction and the judgment and order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2015, whereby the civil appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the order dated 16.07.2015 was also dismissed.

3. There is 119 days delay in filing the second appeal.

4. A delay condonation application (IA 8482 of 2019) along with the affidavit of the appellant has been filed with the averments that the delay has been caused due to the reason that he was in the Mahakumbh being held at Prayagraj till the end of March 2019, therefore, the appellant/applicant could not approach the Court within stipulated time, therefore, he prayed that the delay of 119 days may be condoned.

5. Counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay by submitting that in paragraph nos.5 & 7 of the affidavit supporting the delay condonation application, the days of delay are unfilled that shows the negligence and the carelessness on the part of the appellant/applicant; that, even if it is presumed that the appellant/applicant participated in the Mahakumbh even then by his own submission in paragraph no.3 of the affidavit, the appellant/applicant has not given any reason whatsoever what prevented the appellant to approach the Court within the limitation prescribed, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed with cost.

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 119 days, this Court is not inclined to consider the delay condonation application. The delay condonation application is hereby rejected.

7. Consequently, the present second appeal is dismissed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 17.10.2023 Mamta