M/S Systems India Pvt. Ltd. vs Ch.Aishi Ram Batra Public ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 4987 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Judgment : 28.10.2010

+      RSA No. 253/2008 and CM Appl No. 17978/2008 (for stay)

M/s SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.           ...........Appellant
                  Through: Mr.P.P.Ahuja, Advocate.

                     Versus

Ch.AISHI RAM BATRA PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST
AND ORS.
                                     ..........Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Kartickay Mathur for
                          Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)

1.     The impugned judgment is the judgment and decree dated

31.10.2008 vide which the First Appellate Court had reversed the

finding of the Trial Judge dated 14.11.2008 thereby dismissing the

suit of the plaintiff.

2.     This is a second appeal.     On behalf of the appellant, it is

pointed out that along with the appeal under Section 96 of the

Code of Civil Procedure an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 had also been preferred.

3.     Perusal of the record shows that this application had been

filed along with the appeal of which notice had been issued to the

respondent vide order dated 1.02.2007.           On 29.03.2007, matter

had been listed for reply and arguments on the said application for

07.05.2007.       On 19.07.2007, at the request of the appellant, the
RSA No.253/2008                                         Page 1 of 2
 application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was directed to

be heard along with main appeal.

4.     Further perusal of the record shows that the impugned

judgment i.e. the judgment dated 31.10.2008 had decided the

appeal without adverting to the application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act. This is evident and apparent from the record which

has been requisitioned. This has raised a substantial question of

law.

5.     In this view of the matter, it is a fit case where the matter

should be remanded back to the First Appellate Court to decide the

appeal afresh after adjudicating upon the application under Section

5 of the Limitation Act.

6.     With these directions, this appeal is disposed of.

7.     The matter is accordingly remanded back to the District

Judge, Delhi, who will assign it to the concerned first Appellate

Court. Parties to appear before Ld.District & Sessions Judge, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi on 09.11.2010 at 10.30 AM.

8.     Records be also sent back.

9.     Appeal as also the pending application is disposed of.



                                           INDERMEET KAUR, J.

OCTOBER 28, 2010 ss