HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 433 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. (I.A. No. 1 of 2025- Delay Condonation Application) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Niharika Sahai, Advocate holding brief of Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. This is an appeal challenging the judgement and order dated 8.5.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 5108 of 2025. 3. The appeal is delayed by 126 days. 4. We have perused the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. 5. It is not denied by the appellant that the appellant was represented by a counsel before the writ Court, therefore, obviously the counsel would have informed the appellant about the dismissal of the writ petition on 8.5.2025. It is not the case of the appellant that she was not so informed. The only explanation offered is that the deponent is only a simple lady and was not aware about the legal procedure which is hardly an Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anoop Vajpayee, Atul Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Puneet Chandra Smt. Prabhawati .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health,Lko. And 10 Others .....Respondent(s) acceptable explanation. She was represented by a counsel, therefore, the counsel would have advised her. The other explanation is that she was faced with some personal problems, due to which she could not contact the counsel who has filed the appeal. This averment is also rather casual and there is no disclosure as to what was the personal problem which prevented her for 126 days to file this appeal, therefore, this is also not acceptable. Thereafter, the affidavit states that on 12.10.2025, the deponent contacted the counsel who advised her to file special appeal. Now, this itself is delayed by more than 5 months since the impugned judgement has been rendered on 8.5.2025. The affidavit goes on to state that after arranging the documents and fees etc., she contacted the counsel on 14.10.2025 and then the appeal has been filed. 6. We find that the appeal has been filed on 04.11.2025. There was no urgency shown even after 14.10.2025. The affidavit is not only very casual in its pleading, there is hardly anything mentioned therein which could persuade us to condone the delay in filing this appeal, keeping in mind the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement in Shivamma (Dead) by LRS vs. Karnatka Housing Board and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 1969 decided on 12.09.2025. The limitation for filing special appeal 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. The delay is inordinate and has not been explained satisfactorily. 7. Accordingly, we reject the application for condonation of delay. (Order on Appeal) SPLAD No. 433 of 2025 2 8. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. November 11, 2025 Shravan SPLAD No. 433 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench