- (1.) DELAY condonation Application along with an affidavit has been filed by the appellant defendant for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal. as per stamp reporter note the appeal is delayed by 107 days.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that original suit was decreed on 29.8.2008 and the copy of the judgment dated 29.8.2008 was obtained in the first week of September, 2008 and after obtaining the certified copy and other documents, one official of the appellant reported the matter to the Joint Secretary of Kanpur Development Authority for necessary action with regard to filing of appeal and the Joint Secretary wrote a letter to Secretary for filing of appeal and thereafter the entire papers were sent to the High Court counsel Sri M.C. Tripathi at Allahabad for preparation of First Appeal on 19.11.2008 , subsequently, counsel of the K.D.A. had informed that certain more relevant papers were required for filing as well as for preparation of the first appeal. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that before winter vacation the First Appeal was prepared but it could not be filed as certified copy of the judgment was lost from the original file and then the counsel instructed the appellant's pairokar for obtaining another certified copy of the judgment which was made available to the counsel during winter vacation and subsequently the Secretary of the K.D.A was transferred, thereafter, again new process was adopted and only thereafter the present First Appeal was finally prepared and has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submitted that condonation of delay application is not supported with the affidavits of the concerned official or the counsel involved in causing delay as to why the papers did not move immediately. No sufficient cause has been explained for the delay so caused. It is submitted that the condonation of delay application cannot be treated as a cursory ritual and it is enjoined upon the appellant authority to rather explain the delay in filing the appeal, which is lacking. Appellant authority has taken a vague plea that the first certified copy of the judgment was lost. It is submitted that no date or name of officer is mentioned who was so careless that he lost such important documents, how and from where and whether any departmental enquiry was undertaken and if yes, by whom and its outcome. There is nothing on record to show that a second certified copy was availed. The explanation so made is without any dates and is not substantiated with any proof. Rather the application is drafted in most cursory and casual manner.;