JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 430002 of 2015 2. The explanation given for delay in filing the appeal is that the father of the husband of the appellant had approached the counsel Shri Kailash Nath Tripathi who was a practicing Advocate at High Court Allahabad for the purpose of filing appeal. This certified copy of the judgment and order dated 15.12.1993 and the requisite fee and expenses for filing appeal have been handed over to the counsel namely Shri Kailash Nath Tripathi in the month of February, 1994. 3. It is further stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application that the father of the husband of the appellant approached Shri Kailash Nath Tripathi, Advocate on 20.08.1994 who told him that the first appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.12.1993 has been filed by Noida for quashing of the said judgment and hence father of the husband of the appellant who was doing pairvi signed the Vakalatnama for filing counter affidavit in First Appeal Defective No. 825 of 1994. It was informed by the counsel Shri Kailash Nath Tripathi to the father of the husband of the appellant that the appeal for enhancement of compensation had been filed on his behalf. This fact was also brought to the knowledge of uncle of the husband of the appellant namely Subhash Chandra Sharma. Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma has been appointed as Karta of the family being eldest by the father of the husband of appellant who had also approached the counsel Shri Kailash Nath Tripathi, Advocate. 4. The crux of the submission of the deponent in the affidavit is that the members of family of her husband had approached the counsel who had taken the fee for filing appeal and provided wrong information to the person doing pairvi that the appeal had been filed. Having examined the averments made in the affidavit accompanying delay condonation application, this Court finds that a story has been concocted to plead that the persons who are not alive had handed over fee for filing appeal to a counsel who is also not alive. How these fact had come to the knowledge of the deponent is not reflected from the record and as such the explanation given by the appellant deponent for delay in filing the appeal cannot be accepted. How these fact had come to the knowledge of the deponent is not reflected from the record and as such the explanation given by the appellant deponent for delay in filing the appeal cannot be accepted. The entire affidavit is full of concocted story. The affidavit accompanying delay condonation application is accordingly rejected. 5. However on the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant, an opportunity is provided to file a better affidavit in support of the delay condonation application. Put up this matter on 07.01.2016 in the additional cause list.