- (1.) THIS is an application made by the respondent no. 1 seeking review/recall of the judgment and order dated 07.04.2010 partly allowing the appeal. The appeal was partly allowed by making the following order : "This First Appeal From Order has been filed against the judgement and award dated 24.10.1996 passed by learned IInd Addl. Civil Judge in Misc Case No. 77 of 1996 and Misc. Case No. 71 of 1006 (Agra Vikas Pradhikarana Vs. Devendra Singh Tarkar) by which the learned Civil Judge has made an award dated 13.8.1996? by the Arbitrator Rule of Court. The only point pressed in the appeal is that the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) had only power to make the award rule of the court and he was not empowered to impose additional interest than that given by the Arbitrator in the award. From the perusal of the award, we find that learned Arbitrator has? allowed interest on each and every claim and after calculating the total claim accepted by the Arbitrator was Rs. 26,45085.80. Learned Civil Judge had allowed interest at the rate of 18 % over Rs. 12,87,743.60 from 16.8.1996 till date of judgement i.e. 24.10.1996. From where this figure is obtained by the learned Civil Judge is not clear and the learned counsel for the Contractor also could not point out any thing in this regard. This portion of the order relating to interest at the rate of 18 % on Rs. 1287,743.60 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. With aforesaid observation, this First Appeal From Order is partly allowed. No order is passed as to costs"
(2.) STAMP Reporter has reported delay and laches of one year and 81 days in making review/recall application. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay has also been moved. Cause shown for delay as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is that his counsel informed him on? 18.06.2011 that the appeal has been party allowed on 07.04.2010 and thereafter, he came to Allahabad on 29.06.2011 and obtained certified copy of the order on 29.06.2011 and the delay has been caused due to lack of knowledge on account of which the review/recall application could not be filed within stipulated time.
(3.) BALD allegations have been made without specifying as to how and in what manner his counsel informed him. Allegations do not inspire confidence and it appears that it has been made only for the purpose of the case. Even the certified copy which he has applied and obtained on 29.06.2011 has not been filed so as to substantiate the allegations. Mere allegations without mentioning the details and not supported by any material? cannot constitute a ground to condone the delay. Delay condonation application stands rejected as a consequence, the review/recall application also stands rejected.;