IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 34 of 2008 1. Smt. Arti Pandey, W/O Late Anil Kumar Pandey, 2. Aditi Pandey, D/O Late Anil Kumar Pandey, 3. Neha Pandey, D/O Late Anil Kumar Pandey, 4. Disha Pandey, D/O Late Anil Kumar Pandey, 5. Ankit Pandey, S/O Late Anil Kumar Pandey, All R/O 5/538 Tikonia Malla Gorakhpur, Haldwani, District Nainital …….. Applicants Versus 1. Virendra Kumar Pandey, S/O Late Dr. M.L. Pandey, R/O 5/538 Tikonia Malla, Gorakhpur, Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. Neera Jetly, D/O Late Dr. M.L. Pandey, W/O Shri Harshvardhan Jetly, R/O C-3/74, Janakpuri, New Delhi ……………Respondents Ms. Menaka Tripathi, Advocate present for the appellant. Shri Alok Mehra, Advocate present for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is recall application MCC No. 583 of 2009 along with delay condonation application no. 6831 of 2009. (2) Heard learned Counsel for the parties on delay condonation application no. 6831 of 2009 and perused the affidavit. The application No. 6831 of 2009 is allowed in delay in filing the recall application MCC No. 583 of 2009 is condoned. (3) Also heard on recall application MCC no 583 of 2009, whereby, it is prayed that the order dated 30th of October, 2008, by which the delay condonation application no. 2950 of 2008 was dismissed by this Court and the memorandum of appeal is rejected as barred by time. (4) The ground mentioned in the affidavit filed with the recall application is that the Court had not issued notice to the respondents to file their objections on delay condonation application no. 2590 of 2008 filed with the memorandum of appeal. That is no ground for recalling the order dated 30th of October 2008, so far as the applicant/appellant is concerned. On that ground only the respondent could have said he was not heard on the application. There is no sufficient reason disclosed in the affidavit of the applicant that as to why the applicant/appellant was absent on 30th of October 2008. On date of said order the respondent was present. Perusal of the memorandum of appeal shows that there was delay of as many as almost nine months in filing the appeal. The affidavit filed with the delay condonation application 2590 of 2008, which was dismissed vide order dated 30th of 2008, shows that the there was no sufficient explanation for such a long delay in the affidavit. There is no explanation for delay of the period after 15 of November 2007, till the memorandum of appeal was filed in May 2008. (5) In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined recall the order dated 30th of October 2008. Therefore, the recall application MCC No. 583 of 2009 is hereby dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.01.04.2010 Nahid