VIRENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A. No.01/2019, an application for condonation of delay of 450 days in filing this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that after passing of the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.09.2017, an application for obtaining the same was made on 12.02.2019 and in pursuance thereof, the certified copy was delivered on 19.02.2019 (though it appears to be delivered on 23.02.2019). It is submitted further that since, the Appellant was suffering from Parkinson disease since 31.08.2015 and till date his treatment is continued and, therefore, he was unable to perform his routine work. It is submitted further that after recovering to some extent from his said disease, the instant appeal has been preferred on 14.03.2019. It is, therefore, contended that the delay as occurred was not deliberate and deserves to be condoned in order to provide the substantial justice to the parties.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has opposed the same and contended that the reason as assigned in the application is fabricated and, in fact, the Appellant was not suffering from the said disease as alleged in the application. While furnishing certain order sheets of the judicial proceedings as initiated by him, it is submitted that the Appellant was continuously pursuing those judicial proceedings and has, therefore, taken a false plea in his application in order to get the condonation of delay of 450 days which, therefore, deserves to be rejected. In support, a reliance has been placed upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Maniben Devraj Shah Versus Muncipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai , 2012 5 SCC 157 and Esha Bhattacharjee Versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others , 2013 12 SCC 649 respectively.