IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 37 of 2009 WITH Stay Application No. 5678 of 2009 Delay Condonation App. No. 5689 of 2009 Regional Manager (West) Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand) Forest Department, Ranikhet Road Ramnagar, District Nainital. ……Defendant/Appellant. Versus 1. Taufiq Ahmad S/o Sri Rafiq Ahmad R/o Mohalla Gulargatti Ramnagar, Tehsil Ramnagar District Nainital. 2. State of Uttarakhand. .……….Plaintiff/Respondent. Shri Sudhir Singh, Advocate of the appellant. Per:-Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is delay condonation application No. 5689 of 2009, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2009, passed by first appellate court (Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar) in civil appeal No. 07 of 2008, whereby judgment and decree dated 19.07.2007, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Udham Singh Nagar) in suit No. 123 of 1999, has been affirmed. 2. There is delay of 45 days in filing the appeal, which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit of 2 Shri K.B. Singh, Divisional Forest Development Manager. The application is allowed. The delay is condoned. 3. Also, heard on admission and perused the impugned judgment and decree, passed by the first appellate court (Additional District Judge, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar). 4. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff/respondent Taufiq Ahmad, instituted suit No. 123 of 1999, against the appellant, for recovery of Rs. 1,49,898.15. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that for the year 1995-96, he was given a contract in respect of lot No. 70 by the U.P. Forest Corporation. He completed the work of cutting and digging the roots of trees and filling of the pits. It is further pleaded by him that Rs. 1,49,898.15 is outstanding towards the work done by the plaintiff. The defendant admitted that in the year 1995-96, lot No. 70 was given to the plaintiff but they pleaded that they have made full payment of the work done by the plaintiff relating to cutting and digging of roots of trees. It is further pleaded by the defendants that filling of the pits was not part of the work. Trial court as well as the lower appellate court has given finding in favour of the plaintiff. The decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,49,898.15, has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. 3 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the courts below. The finding of facts, recorded by the courts below are based on appreciation of the evidence and cannot be said to be perverse. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 6. The appeal is dismissed summarily. (Stay application also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:09.07.2009 Sweta 4 5 6 7 8