IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration App. No. 106 / 09 Delay Cond. App. No. 1474 / 09 In D.S.A. No. 27 of 2007 Joga Ram S/o Sri Gauri Ram R/o Village Ghatbagar, Patwari Chhetra Talla Katyur Thana Bageshwar, Tehsil and District Bageshwar. ...…………. Plaintiff / Appellant Versus Dinesh Chandra S/o Sri Hari Dutt R/o Village Rawainkhal, Thana Bageshwar, Patwari Chhetra Rawainkhal, Tehsil and District Bageshwar. ...…………. Defendant /Respondent Mr. Umesh Kalakoti, Advocate for the plaintiff / appellant / applicant. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the defendant / respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. [ This is Delay Condonation Application No. 1474 of 2009, for condonation of delay in moving the Restoration Application M.C.C. No. 106 of 2009. 31 day’s delay in moving the restoration application is sufficiently explained in the affidavit accompanying the application. The application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Also, heard on restoration application. The memorandum of appeal was rejected as barred by time on 16.12.2008, as none appeared to press the delay condonation application, on that day. In the affidavit accompanying the restoration application, absence on the date fixed is sufficiently explained. Therefore, the restoration application is allowed. Defective Second Appeal No. 27 of 2007 is restored to its original number. Also, heard on delay condonation application moved in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2007, passed by District Judge, Bageshwar, in Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2006. There is delay of 78 days in filing the appeal which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application. Therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Also, heard on admission of the appeal and perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.06.2007, passed by the first appellate court (District Judge, Bageshwar) in Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2006, whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2006, passed by the trial court, in Suit No. 15 of 2005, is affirmed. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case for injunction as against the defendant. It is further recorded by the courts below that the shop which was allegedly being run by the plaintiff / appellant, since 1971, was already dismantled in the year 1998-99, under the removal of encroachment drive made by the public authorities. In the opinion of this Court, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 16, 2009. H. Negi