- (1.) INSTANT intra -court appeal has been filed against the order dt. 30.11.2005 dismissing the writ petition as infructuous read with later order dt. 19.03.2012 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for recalling of the order dt. 30.11.2005. However, the office has pointed out delay of 2506 days in filing intra -court appeal. Counsel for appellant submits that instant proceedings initiated in the original writ petition -909/1999 was against the preliminary decree passed by the competent court of jurisdiction and since during pendency final decree came to be passed and in terms thereof he was declared recorded tenant, the appellant was satisfied. However, at later stage final decree was subject matter of challenge in the later proceedings and at this stage when the petitioner felt himself aggrieved he initially filed application for recalling of the order dt. 30.11.2005 and after that came to be dismissed on 19.03.2012 the appellant was advised to file present special appeal and this is the explanation which he has furnished by filing application seeking condonation of delay u/s. 5 of Limitation Act.
(2.) THE delay of 2506 days pointed out by the office has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant and the justification offered seeking condonation of delay is wholly without basis and foundation and in the facts and circumstances which has been noticed by us that the writ petition was originally dismissed as infructuous on the application filed by the petitioner himself there was no occasion for him to file application for recalling of the order and that too after seven years of passing of the order and even if any change took place that would not amount to recalling of the order.
(3.) WE do not find any substance in the application seeking condonation of delay u/s. of Limitation Act and so also in the appeal itself. Consequently, the application u/s. 5 of Limitation Act and the appeal stand dismissed.;