- (1.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for applicants-appellants and Sri Anil sharma, Advocate for respondent.
(2.) THIS is a second appeal instituted by State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Bijnor and another and has been filed beyond period of limitation by one year and 322 days, i.e., almost two years. The appeal is accompanied with this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1963") seeking condonation of delay. The affidavit accompanying this application gives nothing but a superficial eye wash explanation having several wide gaps in the prospective of period. In brief, the chronological events given in affidavit to explain delay, read as under: Dates Events 17.01.2011 The judgment delivered by Lower Appellate Court. 24.01.2011 Certified copy of judgment applied. 24.02.2011 Certified copy of judgment received by DGC. 10.03.2011 DGC sent certified copy of judgment alongwith his opinion. 01.10.2012 Fresh certified copy of judgment applied. 04.10.2012 Certified copy prepared and notified. 08.10.2012 Certified copy of judgment received by appellant's counsel. 10.10.2012 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur sent letter to District Magistrate for necessary instructions. 15.10.2012 District Magistrate directed to file appeal. 20.10.2012 Tehsildar (Judicial) letter requesting District Magistrate to obtain permission from Government. 22.10.2012 District Magistrate's letter to Government seeking permission. 28.01.2013 The Government granted permission to file appeal. 01.02.2013 The District Magistrate received letter of permission. 05.02.2013 District Magistrate directed to file appeal. 08.03.2013 Appeal presented in the Court. In the aforesaid narration, after sending opinion by DGC on 10.03.2011, there is no explanation for a period of about one and half years and more inasmuch as the applicants applied for fresh certified copy of judgment on 01.10.2012 but what happened to earlier certified copy of judgment and what proceedings were taken, the affidavit is totally silent except of stating that earlier certified copy lost somewhere but no inquiry, no investigation and no action against anybody stated to have been taken by applicants. It is also not clear at what stage and from when the certified copy was misplaced or lost. The explanation is extremely sketchy and in a usual casual, careless and negligence manner.
(3.) IT is true that when State is a party, and file appeal with some delay, it may deserve some leverage for official hierarchical steps for permission etc. but a wholly unexplained, reckless and negligent approach of delay running in almost one and half years and more cannot be overlooked particularly when it is not the case of applicants that they have taken any action against erring individual.;