Hon’ble Kalimullah Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for th respondent and perused the record.

2. This second appeal has been preferred by defendant appellant U.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as the UPSIDC against Salek Chand (deceased) and others.. plaintiff respondent under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 20.5.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4 Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1990, UPSIDC v. Salek Chand and others, whereby the Court below rejected the delay condonation application paper No. C-35 and held that Civil Appeal No. 124/90 stood abated.

3. Original Suit No. 1273 /88 was instituted by the plaintiff respondent Salek Chand against the defendant appellant for a Relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. Case of the plaintff is that he is owner in possession of the Khata Khtauni No. 161, Khasra 1603 area 1 Bigha 2 biswas pakka situate in village Rajapur pergana Dasna, Tehsil and district Ghaziabad. He had purchased the said land on 25.8.1959. Defendant appellant had no right, title and interest therein. Neither the said land was ever acquired nor any award was made. The plaintiff did not get any compensation therefor.

4. Defendant appellant filed W.S. and pleaded that plaintiff is not owner in possession of the said property. vide Notification No. 4032 (III)E-P/XVIII-R. 271-H/62 dated 1.11.1962 published in the extra-ordinary Gazette of State of U.P. the said land has been acquired and since then the plaintiff ceased to have any right, title and interest and the formal possession of the land in suit has been taken by the defendant appellant. Since 26.3.1963 defendant is in possession over the land in suit and it is wrong to say that the said property has not been acquired.

5. Five Issues were framed by the learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties.

6. Issue No. 1 was framed to the effect that whether plaintiff is the owner in possession of disputed plot khasra No. 1603/1-2-0 and Issue No. 2 was framed to the effect that whether the disputed land has been acquired by defendant and defendant is in possession thereon.

7. Parties adduced oral as well a documentary evidence.

8. Leaned trial Court decided Issue No. 1 in affirmative and Issue No. 2 in negative and held that no award was ever made under Section 11-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and no compensation was ever paid to the plaintiff and therefore, the Notification issued for land acquisition has rendered ineffective. The trial Court held that the plaintiff is still the owner in possession of the land in suit and vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.1990 decreed the plaintiff’s suit and restrained the defendant appellant from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff in disputed land khasra No. 161/1603 area 1 bigha and 2 biswas.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree Civil Appeal No. 124/90 was filed by the defendant UPSIDC against Salek Chand plaintiff under Section 96 of the C.P.C.

10. During the pendency of the aforesaid civil appeal Salek Chand plaintiff respondent died on 8.4.1992. After about 18 years on 4.3.2010 paper No. K-34 Amendment application/substitution application was filed alongwith delay condonation application C-35 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act supported by C-36 affidavit wherein UPSIDC stated that it could know the death of sole respondent only on 26.5.2009 and not before that and after 26.5.2009 they collected information of the heirs of the deceased and filed the aforesaid application on 4.3.2010.

11. Opposite parties filed objection by making averments that appellant UPSIDC had filed false affidavit knowingly, intentionally and deliberately and therefore, it cannot be given the benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act because it had come to know the information of the death of the sole respondent on 16.4.1993 as is apparent from the appellan