Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) - Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the appellant. This first appeal has been filed beyond limitation by six years and 8 days, along with delay condonation application and affidavit. The affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application has been sworn by one Sri Brahampal Singh which is reproduced below: 1. That the deponent is the family friend of the appellant and is doing pairvi on his behalf in the above noted First Appeal and as such he is well acquainted with the facts deposed to below. 2. That reference was decided on 16.08.2010 by the Learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Bijnor and appellant was interested to challenge reference before Hon'ble High Court, therefore, the certified copy was obtain on 17.11.2011 and appellant has come to Allahabad for going to the chamber of present counsel and at the Railway Station one person has met by saying that he is Clerk of Mr. Sisodia and counsel has gone to Delhi and that person has taken away the appellant to one house to the southern side of main railway station and appellant has handed over fees and document to that person. 3. That the appellant was under bona fide impression that his appeal has already been filed, but he was also worried that no one is responding at the telephone number which was given to him. 4. That in the first week of November, 2016, appellant has succeeded in getting mobile number of Mr. Sisodia who has told that he has no document in the name of Mahendra Singh and thereafter the appellant has requested the deponent who is close family friend to go to Allahabad. 5. That the deponent has come to Allahabad on 16.11.2016 and he has contacted on the telephone number and he has succeeded in getting location of telephone number and with the help on counsel deponent has succeeded in getting documents and fees (in part) and present appeal is being got prepared by the counsel, therefore, the delay, if any, in filing the present First Appeal, may kindly be condoned.
(2.) Perusal of aforequoted affidavit shows that apparently it is a false affidavit. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit a vague averment has been made without disclosing the name of the alleged person and his mobile number to whom the appellant allegedly handed over the fees and the documents including certified copy of the impugned judgment obtained on 17.11.2011. There is no disclosure of facts that on which the appellant came to Allahabad when he allegedly met someone who allegedly represented to be clerk of the present counsel namely, Sri Rajiv Sisodia.
(3.) Allegation has been made in paragraph 3 that no one was responding at the telephone number which was given to him. Even in this paragraph the appellant has not disclosed name of the alleged person and his alleged telephone number.;