Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—This is defective time-barred appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on disposal of application for condonation of delay in filing the present second appeal.

2. Original Suit No. 352/1999 Dinesh Chandra Dubey v. Kripa Shanker Dubey and others, was dismissed by the judgment dated 19.11.2008, of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naugarh, Siddharthnagar. Against this judgement of trial Court, Civil Appeal No. 109/2008 Dinesh Chandra Dubey v. Kripa Shanker Dubey and others was filed, which was heard and dismissed by judgment dated 31.5.2014 of Additional District Judge, Court No. -2, Siddharthnagar. By this judgment, the findings and judgment of trial Court was confirmed.

3. Against the judgment of trial Court as well lower appellate Court, the memorandum of second appeal was filed by plaintiff-appellant beyond 1 year and 143 days after the lapse of period of limitation. This is supported by application for condonation of delay in filing appeal alongwith affidavit of plaintiff-appellant. In this affidavit the grounds taken for condonation of delay are mentioned in paras 2 to 5 on affidavit, which are as under :

“2. That the deponent is very poor and illiterate person and suffering from old age disease from long time.

3. That after some time anyhow on 14.1.2016 he came to Allahabad in “Kumbha Mela” and thereafter contacted to counsel Sri R.P. Srivastava and knowing about legal procedure and after considering material facts the counsel advise him to file second appeal before this Hon’ble Court with delay condonation application.

4. That immediately the deponent came to her home and managed necessary expenses without delay contacted to Sri R.P. Srivastava on 26.1.2016 then he immediately drafted Second Appeal.

5. That there is no deliberate delay or negligence on the part of the deponent for filing the present second appeal, therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased allow the condonation application, and condone the delay, if any, in filing the present second appeal otherwise the deponent/appellant shall suffer great irreparable loss and injury which can bot be compensated in terms of money.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no deliberate delay was caused by the appellant in filing the second appeal, when his counsel advised then he had decided to file appeal and filed memorandum of appeal without any unnecessary delay. Such delay is genuine for sufficient reason, therefore, such delay should be condoned.

5. Prima facie it appears to Court that the ground mentioned in delay condonation application and supporting affidavit was not sufficient, therefore, without informing and issuing the notices to the respondents hearing was made on this application and order is being passed.

6. It is nowhere mentioned in application or affidavit that plaintiff was so poor, that he was unable to arrange money/expenses for filing the second appeal within time. The judgment of lower appellate Court was passed in May, 2014 and he had knowledge of same from very beginning. It is no where mentioned that plaintiff-appellant was advised by his local/regional counsel of district Siddhartha Nagar not to prefer second appeal. It appears that after the judgment of lower appellate Court, the plaintiff-appellant had intended not to further pursue the matter, but when he visited at Allahabad in January, 2016, in “Kumbh Mela” (it appears that it should be “Maagh Mela”), he came in contact new counsel at Allahabad, then he was advised to prefer delayed Second Appeal with delay condondation application. According to the affidavit, he contacted his counsel of Allahabad on 14.1.2016 and 26.1.2016 and then immediately filed appeal on 3.2.2016, thus, there is no ground for inability to arrange money/expenses for filing the appeal.

7. It is no where mentioned in affidavit or application that applicant-appellant or his counsel had no knowledge o