Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. filed by plaintiff-appellant is barred by time by 138 days, hence application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation thereof has been filed.
(2.) Heard Sri Karn Prakash Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant.
(3.) A very vague and perfunctory explanation has been given in the affidavit accompanying delay condonation application, as is evident from the averments contained in paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit accompanying delay condonation application, which read as under : "2. That the judgment/decree dated 16.4.2009 passed in Appeal No.59/06 was not communicated to the plaintiff/appellant and same was communicated to her and she got the knowledge of the appellate judgment when she visited her local counsel to enquire about the status of the case in the second week of May, 2009 and thereafter the judgment of the appellate court was applied for and obtained. 3. That after passing of the judgment and decree the plaintiff/appellant who is having a rustic back ground and does not have social contact with educated people, who in turn could have advised her for challenging the impugned judgment and decree which was passed against him by filing an appeal kept mum for some time but in the last week of May, 2009 he was advised by one of her relative for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court.;