Order Passed

Sh. Nitin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sh. M.N. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent are present.

Heard.

This is delay condonation application filed by the appellant to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

There is delay of 11 months and 16 days.

We have perused the affidavit accompanying to the application for delay condonation, wherein delay has been explained.  Appellant has obtained the certified copy of the impugned judgment on 20.07.2015. It is  alleged that he contacted his advocate on 28.08.2014 on telephone and again he personally contacted on 05.09.2014.  His advocate told him that his case was fixed for arguments on 22.09.2014. 

In para No. 4, it is further stated that it was told by the advocate to the appellant on telephone that your case has been decided on 22.09.2014.  When the appellant again contacted the advocate on telephone on 24.09.2014, then his advocate has informed him that your case has been dismissed.  According to the appellant, he requested to the advocate, who conducted the case before the District Forum, for filing appeal, but the appeal could not be filed by the advocate.  The appellant was in the impression that the advocate had filed the appeal. 

It was further alleged that on 20.07.2015, when the appellant went to the chamber of the advocate for meeting, but he did not meet him, since the advocate was out of station.  Copy of the impugned judgment was obtained by the appellant on 20.07.2015 and, thereafter, appellant contacted Sh. Nitin Kumar, Advocate on 06.10.2015 and thereafter on 08.10.2015 appeal has been filed.  

Affidavit of the counsel, who conducted the case before the District Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar, has not been filed by the appellant, whether he engaged him for filing the appeal or not and there is no legible & sufficient explanation for the period from 22.09.2014 to 20.07.2015 and after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment, he contacted the advocate for filing the appeal on 06.10.2015 and there is no explanation of delay of this intervening period also. 

Therefore, we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant for delay of 11 months 16 days in filing the appeal.  Application for delay condonation lacks merit and is dismissed.  Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.