- (1.) Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the applicants/appellants. ORDER ON DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATIONS FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 292 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No.278616 of 2016 (i) This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 4 years and 48 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii). In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: "That, in the reference No.384 of 1990 the Addl. District Judge, Court No.2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 28.03.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No.09 of 2012 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 29.10.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a copy of show cause dated 29.10.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit." (iii). Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 30.10.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 30.10.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay can not be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected.
(2.) First APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 293 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No.278631 of 2016 (i). This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 85 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii). In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: "That, in the reference No.386 of 1991 the Addl. District Judge, Court No.2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 2.03.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No.07 of 2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a copy of show cause dated 19.9.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit." (iii). Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 19.09.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 19.09.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay can not be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected.
(3.) First APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 294 of 2016 Delay Condonation Application No.278650 of 2016 (i). This appeal has been filed beyond limitation by 7 years and 123 days alongwith delay condonation application and affidavit. (ii). In paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application it is stated as under: "That, in the reference No.74 of 1989 the Addl. District Judge, Court No.2 Bulandshahar has finally allowed the reference vide order dated 23.01.2009. It is not clear from the available records of the department that as to why the then Jiledar Court Case, Madhya Ganga Canal Construction Division-10, Bulandshahar Mr. Banni Singh, has not take appropriate steps for filing the appeals. During the Execution proceedings having No.01/2009 when it transpired that no appeal has been preferred by the Jiledar as such an explanation was sought from him on 19.9.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a copy of show cause dated 19.9.2015 issued to the then Jiledar is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit." (iii). Subsequent paragraphs of this affidavit attempts to explain delay after 19.09.2015. The affidavit does not at all explain the delay till 19.09.2015. Thus the delay has not been explained and consequently delay can not be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected.;