SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI - (1.)Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the Cross Objectors-claimants/respondents and Sri Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants On Delay Condonation Applications, Civil Misc. Applications,Cross Objections and appeals.
(2.)In all these appeals cross objections alongwith delay condonation applications and the Misc. Applications have been filed by the claimants-respondents. Facts and grounds for delay condonation in all the objections are similar. Under the circumstances, the delay condonation application filed alongwith cross objection in leading First Appeal No. 659 of 2014 is reproduced below:
'1. That the deponent is the pairokar of the claimant-respondent in the above cross objection and as such he is well acquainted with the facts deposed to below.

2. That the appellant filed the present appeal as defective appeal before this Honourable Court.

3. That the delay in filing the appeal as condoned by this Honourable Court on 14.11.2013 and the Honourable Court was thereafter pleased to admit the present appeal.

4. That the claimant-applicant after admission of the appeal collected papers relating to the reference Court and came to Allahabad on 05.01.2014 for seeking advise about future course of action.

5. That in the conference of the deponent with the local counsel at Moradabad namely Sri Raju Sultan Advocate and with the counsel at Allahabad Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate the claimant-applicant decided to file the cross objections for remaining amount that was not awarded by the reference Court in its award dated 20.05.2013.

6. That upon instruction given by the claimant-applicant to the counsel present cross objections were drafted and are now being filed without any further delay.

7. That the delay if any is not deliberate. Prior to 05.01.2014 the claimant-applicant was not aware of the fact that he can prefer cross objections for the remaining amount and as such could not approach this Honourable Court earlier for instituting the present cross objections.

8. That the claimant will suffer irreparably if the delay in filing the cross objections is not condoned and the cross objections are not considered and decided on merits.

9. That under such circumstances it will be necessary in the interest of justice that the delay in filing the present cross objections may be condoned by this Honourable Court and the cross objections may be considered and decided on merits.'

(3.)Perusal of the Delay Condonation Application as aforequoted, clearly shows that the Cross Objectors have not offered any explanation for delay for the period subsequent to 5.1.2014 till 24.2.2016. Thus, the long delay of 2 years and 73 days in filing all the cross objections filed in aforenoted First Appeals are wholly unexplained . Under the circumstances, all the Delay Condonation applications for condonation of delay in filing cross objections in the aforenoted First Appeals are hereby rejected. Consequently, all the Civil Misc. Applications and Cross Objections in all the aforenoted First Appeals also stand rejected.
On Appeals