Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7295 Court No. - 19 Case :- RERA APPEAL No. - 13 of 2025 Appellant :- Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd., Noida Thru. Mr. Ram Pravesh Tiwari Respondent :- Jogendra Kumar Counsel for Appellant :- Naveen Kumar Tiwari,Aditya Pandey,Umesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant. In view of order being passed notices to respondent stand dispensed with. 2. Appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 has been preferred against judgment and order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow whereby First Appeal preferred against the impugned order passed by adjudicating authority on 14.11.2019 has been dismissed pursuant to application for condonation of delay being rejected. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the respondent had filed a complaint with RERA Authority which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 14.11.2019, against which First Appeal was preferred before the Tribunal along with Application for condonation of delay to explain delay of 52 months. 4. It is submitted that a perusal of affidavit filed in support of the application will make it evident that in paragraphs 5 & 6 thereof, it has been stated that the complainant would have to wait for DPR and OC/CC because OC/CC is given after approval of DPR, and possession of plot in such circumstances will have to wait for sometime. It is submitted that the appellant clearly indicated that it is keen to make compliance of judgment in all respect. He has also adverted to paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of application to indicate the reason for delay in completion of the project was due to various interim orders passed by judicial authorities. 5. It is submitted that there was cogent explanation for delay in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay which has been ignored by the Tribunal. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the application for condonation of delay preferred along with Appeal No.106 of 2024 has been rejected by means of impugned order on ground that the applellant has not made any whisper to explain delay and that the application is devoid of any explanation whatsoever. 7. The order also indicates that the averments made in application are on merits of the case. 8. Upon perusal of application for condonation of delay and its supporting affidavit, it is quite evident that the only reasons indicated in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Application are actually on merits of the case explaining reasons why possession of the property in question could not be handed over to complainant within time prescribed. There is actually no explanation given explaining the delay of 52 months in preferring the Appeal. 9. This Court is in agreement with the finding indicated in the impugned judgment that there is not even a whisper with regard to explanation for delay in preferring the Appeal. 10. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstance there does not appear to be any occasion to interfere with the order impugned since there is no substantial question of law involved. 11. The Second Appeal preferred under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 against judgment and order dated 25.11.2024 therefore being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench