Today, learned counsel Sh. Kabir Krishan Shelly on behalf of the appellant as well as Brahmachari Sudhanand, Pairokar on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, have appeared.  None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4 inspite of sufficient service.

Vide order dated 02.02.2024, it was ordered that the delay condonation application shall be heard ex-parte against respondent No. 4.

Application for condonation of delay bearing Paper Nos. 92 to 93 supported by affidavit bearing Paper Nos. 94 to 95, has been submitted on behalf of the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Pairokar of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on delay condonation application.

Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the appellant could not file the appeal in time, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.  The Pairokar of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has contended that there is delay of 186 days’ in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause has been mentioned by the appellant in the delay condonation application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

We have perused the delay condonation application, wherein nothing is alleged as to why the appellant has not filed the appeal in time.  Only reasoning given is that relevant inputs could not be procured for drafting the appeal, on account of which, there is delay of 35 days’ in filing the appeal.  It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has wrongly stated that there is delay of 35 days’ in filing the appeal, whereas as per office report dated 25.11.2021, the appeal has been preferred after a delay of 186 days’.  No sufficient cause for such a long delay in filing the appeal, has been mentioned by the appellant in the delay condonation application.  Although at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the appeal could not be presented in time, but no such ground has been specifically mentioned in the delay condonation application.  Thus, the appellant has not mentioned any sufficient cause or reason for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and the appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the appeal.  Therefore, we are of the view that the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.  As a consequence thereof, the appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable, bearing barred by limitation.

File be consigned to the record room along with copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned District Commission for perusal, information and necessary action.