BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE second appeals have been filed against the orders passed by Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division in First Appeal No. 48/27 and 47-28 of 94-95 on 13-10-98 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28-2-95 passed by Additional S.D.O. Lalitpur in declaratory Suit No. 413/87-88 and 135/91-92 dated 28-2-95. The second appeals have been filed much after the expiry of the limitation of 90 days of passing the order in first appeal though application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal supported by an affidavit have been filed but the reason of delay as stated in the application and affidavit is unsatisfactory. The sole reason for filing late second appeal is lapse on the part of the Advocate engaged at the level of first appeal.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent have objected and filed clounter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit against the assertions made by the appellant. The appellant in his affidavit has stated that he engaged and instructed Sri J.K. Chaddha Advocate Lalitpur for filing second appeal in the month of October 1998 and that Sri Chaddha procured copy of the judgment of the trial Court on 23-10-98. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit the appellants have stated that they enquired on 9-5-99 from Sri Chaddha about the fate of the appeal and then came to know that the second appeal could not be filed due to over sight of Mr. Chaddha. Thereafter they took the papers from Mr. Chaddha and reached Allahabad on 12-5-99 and filed the second appeal on 17-5-99.

(3.) IT is not explained why the appellants kept on sleeping from 23-10-98 to 9-5-99 and did not one bothered to come to the Court and to consult their Advocate regarding the progress in filing the second appeal, if they were so aggrieved by the orders passed by the lower Court. The delay is not satisfactorily explained. Even otherwise also no substantial questions of law has been raised in the memo of second appeal all grounds enumerated therein relates to the facts alone. On this count also the second appeal is not maintainable.