- (1.) ORDERS on Delay Condonation Application No.271548 of 2013, Substitution Application No.271552 of 2013 and Abatement Application No.290150 of 2011.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents were heard on the above three applications. The above noted Abatement Application was filed by the appellant Purushottam Jalan for the reason that proposed respondent Satya Narain Jallan died on 8.12.2008. Aforesaid Satya Narain Jalan was to be substituted as respondent 1/1.
(3.) IN the Substitution Application, it has been prayed by the appellant that the heirs of Satya Narain Jallan 1/1, namely, Vimal Jalan, Vinod Jalan and Manoj Jalan be substituted as respondents as R -1/1/1, R -1/1/2, R -1/1/3. Section 5 Limitation Act Application appended along with the Substitution Application and the affidavit of Ajay Kumar Agarwal in support of Section 5 Limitation Act Application reason for the cause of delay in paragraph -3 as under: - "That the deponent came to Allahabad in the 4th week of August, 2013 for making enquiry about the progress of the present case on behalf of the appellants and during the course of discussion with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the deponent informed the learned counsel about the death of deceased -respondent No.1/1 - Satya Narain Jalan, then the learned counsel advised the deponent that a letter for an information had already been sent to the appellants, requiring them to file substitution application after receiving an abatement application filed by the respondent in the year 2011." After hearing learned counsel for the appellant what is discernible is that the factum of demise of R -1/1 was known to the appellant even in 2011 and they did not file any Substitution Application till 17.9.2013. Paragraph -3 of the Substitution Application is self contradictory. On the one hand the deponent and the affidavit filed in support of Delay Condonation Application? states that he informed his counsel in August, 2013 regarding demise of R -1/1 when he had come to Allahabad to inquire about the Second Appeal but in the same paragraph it has been averred that the counsel has already sent him a letter in? the year 2011 intimating him to come to Allahabad and file Substitution Application. Such type of self contradictory statement do not inspire any confidence and indicate that by giving unacceptable explanation that the appellant wants the heirs of R -1/1, namely, Satya Narain Jalan to be substituted in this appeal.;