Mrs. Vallari C. Robinson vs The President Baptist Union Of ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 3997 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CM(M) No. 567/2014

%                                                   28th August , 2014

MRS. VALLARI C. ROBINSON                                     ..... Petitioner

                           Through:      Mr. R.S.Rai, Adv.

                           versus

THE PRESIDENT BAPTIST UNION OF NORTH INDIA (REGD)
THROUGH REV WALTER DAVID ITS PRESIDENT ..... Respondent

                           Through


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns

the order of the first appellate court dated 20.3.2014 which has dismissed the

appeal as barred by limitation by refusing to condone the delay of 11 years

and 2 ½ months. Since the impugned order is a short order, I reproduce the

same as under:-


      "        TCR is received.
             Heard on the application filed by the appellant under Section 5
      of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 11 years and 2
CMM 567/2014                                                                    Page 1 of 2
       ½ months in preferring the appeal against judgment dated 31.8.2002.
      In sum and substance, the delay in preferring the appeal is sought to
      be explained on the premise that after the passing of the said
      judgment, the execution petition had come to be filed by the DH and
      the appellant has been contesting the said execution proceedings
      under an erroneous advise. During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel
      for the DH points out that execution petition came to be filed only in
      August 2012, which is not disputed by ld. Counsel for the appellant.
      Delay, is beyond comprehension.            No merit.       Dismissed.
      Consequently, the appeal stands rejected. TCR be sent back.
               File be consigned to record room."


2.    I do not find any illegality in the impugned order for interfering with

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because contesting of

execution proceedings will not give a right to file an appeal against the main

judgment with delay of over 11 years.


3.    Dismissed.




AUGUST 28, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib