Court No. - 4 Case :- SECOND APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 14 of 2025 Appellant :- Raju Alias Raju Raj Bali Singh Respondent :- Sri Arvind Kumar Singh And 13 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Avneesh Singh,Anurag Singh Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Heard, Shri Avneesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This highly belated second appeal has been filed alongwith application for condonation of delay (C.M Application No.1 of 2025). 3. The office has reported that the appeal is beyond by 998 days on 21.01.2025. The affidavit filed in support of the application is of five paragraph which are extracted here-in- below:- "1. That the deponent is the appellant in the above noted second appeal and as such he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case deposed hereunder. The deponent is also filing his Identity Proof along with this affidavit. 2. That the above under circumstances delaying filing the appeal may be condoned as the same has not been committed deliberately by the appellant. 3. That immediately thereafter the present appeal along with this application for condonation of delay was prepared which is being filed before this Hon'ble Court for kind consideration. Earlier an appeal was filed bearing SAPLD No.9 of 2025 but due to some typographical error, the same was taken back with liberty to file fresh. Typed copy of the order dated 17.01.2025 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.1. 4. That some delay has been caused in filing the second appeal which is neither deliberate nor intentional but the same has been caused due to the facts mentioned above as such the same is liable to be condoned. 5. That in view of the facts, reasons and circumstances stated here-in-above, it would be expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the second appeal." 4. The aforesaid affidavit indicates that not even a single ground has been given for condonation of such a long delay, therefore, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served even by issuing notices to the respondents for calling objections just for a formality. The application is misconceived and lacks merit. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh with proper application for condonation of delay as this is his first case and due to inadvertence, the grounds could not be disclosed. 6. In view of above, the application for condonation of delay and the appeal are dismissed as not pressed with liberty as aforesaid. 7. As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, the office is directed to return the certified copy/copies annexed with this appeal to the learned counsel for the appellant in accordance with law after keeping photocopy/photocopies on record. ...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Haseen U. Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench