HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 391 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (C. M. Application No. 4 of 2024) 1. This is an application for substitution of legal heirs of respondent no. 1 supported with affidavit. 2. Heard Shri Manish Jauhari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellant and Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The application for substitution is allowed. 4. Let substitution be carried out during course of the day. (C. M. Application No. 1 of 2024) 5. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing special appeal supported with affidavit. 6. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel appears for the newly substituted respondents, therefore, notices need not be issued to them. 7. The Special Appeal has been filed by the State on 23.07.2024 challenging the judgment and order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Writ - A No. 8069 of 2011. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jitendra Singh State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secrt. Administration Anubhag-4,6 U.P. Govt. Lko. And Another .....Appellant(s) Suresh Kumar Shukla And Others .....Respondent(s) 8. As per the reporting there is a delay of 262 days in filing the special appeal. The limitation prescribed for filing such appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is 30 days vide Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Rules, 1952 read with Article 117 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay as also the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the Case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969. The affidavit does not disclose the date of receipt or knowledge of the judgment impugned in this appeal. It merely says that legal opinion was sought after the judgment dated 05.10.2023 being passed which was rendered on 06.02.2024 by the learned Chief Standing Counsel of the State Government in the High Court at Lucknow. There is no explanation much less of satisfactory one for the intervening period i.e. 06.10.2023 to 05.02.2024. The affidavit says that on 07.02.2024 the legal opinion along with impugned judgment was forwarded to the Law Department which gave its opinion to file an appeal on 09.02.2025. Thereafter, the State Government gave permission to file an appeal on 06.02.2024 and on 27.05.2024 the learned Chief Standing Counsel allotted the file to learned Standing Counsel for preparing the appeal, but, there is no explanation whatsoever as to what transpired between 17.02.2024 to 26.05.2024 a good three months and more. Thereafter, the appeal has been filed on 23.07.2024 and again there is no explanation for the intervening period i.e. 28.05.2024 to 22.07.2024. The affidavit is absolutely casual in its pleading. It hardly discloses a bonafide attempt to explain the delay. The delay is not only inordinate it has not been explained satisfactorily, therefore, in view of the recent decision in the case of Shivamma (supra), we do not find it a fit case for condoning the delay and extending the limitation. 9. Accordingly, we reject the application for condonation of delay. 10. Consequently, the special appeal also stands dismissed. October 29, 2025 R.K.P. SPLAD No. 391 of 2024 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench