Heard Sri S.S. Srinet, learned standing counsel for the appellant/ applicant.
This appeal involving valuation of Rs.32718.75 was presented on 24.09.2014 beyond limitation by one year and 177 days, along with delay condonation application and affidavit.
In this first appeal, the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Varanasi in L.A.R. No.236-A of 2002, has been challenged.
The affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is apparently a glaring example of most careless drafting. In paragraph-3 of the affidavit, it is stated that certified copy of judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012, was applied by the D.G.C. on 18.04.2012, which was received on 11.05.2012. In paragraph-4 & 5, it is stated that thereafter letter was sent to the D.G.C. on 25.05.2012 for getting a legal opinion on the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 and the D.G.C. gave his legal opinion on 12.01.2013. Thus, averments made in paragraphs-3, 4 & 5, are not only false but also an example of most careless drafting inasmuch as certified copy of the judgment could not have been applied prior to the delivery of the judgment i.e. dated 29.09.2012 and in the same way, legal opinion could also not have been obtained. Thus, the averments made in paragraphs-3, 4 & 5 are misleading.
That apart, no explanation has been offered for delay after the permission was obtained on 20/ 23.06.2014 and the letter dated 22.07.2014 was written for budget which was allotted and the amount was deposited in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel on 25.09.2014. The appeal was presented on 24.09.2014. This affidavit has been sworn on 18.09.2014 but it refers to subsequent events of 25.09.2014 as stated in paragraph-10 of the affidavit. Thus, this affidavit is not merely an example of careless drafting but the same is false and totally misleading also.
Under the circumstances, Delay Condonation Application No.323306 of 2014, is rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- to be recovered from the personal salary of the officer, who has filed such a frivolous affidavit. The cost shall be deposited within a month with Legal Cell Authority, High Court, Allahabad.
The recovery of cost is ordered in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Atma Singh Grewal, (2014) 13 SCC 666 ( para-14).
Order Date :- 17.8.2016 NLY .
.
.
.
.
Delay Condonation Application Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Rejected.
For order see order of date passed on the memo of appeal.
Order Date :- 17.8.2016 NLY