Delhi High Court
Santokh Singh Thru Lr???S vs Sucha Singh on 18 November, 2013
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No.238/2004 and CM No.15428/2004
Date of Decision : 18.11.2013
SANTOKH SINGH THRU LR'S ..... Appellant
Through: In person.
versus
SUCHA SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.S.N.Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present regular second appeal has been pending for the last
nine years.
2. The appellant is present in person.
3. He has prayed for an adjournment on the ground that his counsel is
not available. The request for adjournment is vehemently opposed by the
learned counsel for the respondent.
4. A perusal of the record shows that the instant regular second appeal
is pending since 07.12.2004 i.e. almost for the last nine years. Though the
matter has been taken up for hearing on different dates, the same has been
adjourned at the request of the counsel for more than 15 times. There is a
stay order against dispossession of the appellant from the suit premises
passed on 07.12.2004, but no sincere efforts have been made by the
learned counsel for the appellant during all these years to make
submissions with regard to formulation of a substantial question of law.
On the contrary, repeated adjournments have been taken on one ground or
the other. I am not inclined to adjourn the case any further as the court
has already been very indulgent in granting adjournments during all these
nine years. The regular second appeal cannot be entertained until and
unless a substantial question of law is involved in the matter.
5. My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the
respondent to the fact that he had filed a suit for possession in respect of
the suit property which happens to be a residential property bearing
no.1/210/3-A, Haji Mohd.Ishaq Building, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt. The
case which was set up was that the respondent had purchased the suit
property as an evacuee property from the Ministry of Rehabilitation and
he came into possession of a portion of the property in the year 1948
while as a portion of the suit property was under the occupation of the
present appellant. It was alleged that the appellant being in unauthorized
occupation of the suit property deserves to be evicted. The appellant filed
his written statement and took the plea that he is the tenant of the
custodian in respect of the suit property and in that capacity he becomes
the tenant under the respondent also. On the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues were framed:
"i) Whether the suit has been correctly and
properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and
jurisdiction? OPP.
ii) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit
property? OPP.
iii) Whether the defendant is a tenant in the suit
property? If so, to what effect? OPD.
iv) Whether the defendant has become the owner
of the property by perfecting his title by adverse
possession? OPD.
v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any
damages for use and occupation of the property? If
so, at what rate and for what period and how much?
OPP.
vi) Relief."
6. Issue no.3 was whether the appellant/defendant was a tenant in the
suit property? If so, to what effect? The said issue was decided against
the appellant as he failed to prove that he is the tenant under the
custodian. This finding was upheld by the first appellate court on being
challenged by him. Another defence which was set up by the appellant
was that he had become the owner by way of adverse possession. The
said issue was also decided against the appellant by the two courts below.
It is after the two concurrent findings having been returned against the
appellant/defendant by the two court below that the appellant/defendant
has chosen to file the present regular second appeal. Section 100 CPC
clearly lays down that the regular second appeal would not be
maintainable unless and until a substantial question of law is shown to
have been involved. During all these nine years, no sincere effort has
been made to argue and convince the court that the matter involves
substantial question of law. On the contrary, on the last 4-5 dates of
hearing, it has been a common practice that the counsel does not appear
on the first call and even on the second call the case is taken up for
hearing at the fag end of the day when the matter gets adjourned.
7. I am not inclined to adjourn the matter further. I have gone
through the impugned order as well as the order of trial court. The
present regular second appeal does not involve a substantial question of
law. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
NOVEMBER 18, 2013
dm
