Delhi High Court
Amrik Singh vs Bhagwan Singh & Ors. on 8 September, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 966/2013
% 8th September , 2014
AMRIK SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
BHAGWAN SINGH & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shekhar Dasi & Mr. Akhilesh
Srivastava, Advocates for R-2 and 4.
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 Rent Control Tribunal dated 14.3.2013 by which
the Rent Control Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of 10 months in
filing of the appeal.
2. The reason given for refusing to condone the delay is that the
petitioner herein (who is an Advocate), and who was the appellant before the
Rent Control Tribunal, was contesting as a respondent in another appeal
filed by the defendant in the suit (i.e the respondents in the first appeal)
challenging the self-same judgment of the trial court dated 31.7.2010, and
CMM 966/2013 Page 1 of 3
consequently the reason given of medical illness by the petitioner will not
hold water because if the petitioner can personally contest as a respondent in
an appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment of the trial court
dated 31.7.2010, then, the petitioner could also have filed an appeal against
the same judgment of the trial court dated 31.7.2010 in time.
3. The relevant observations of the Rent Control Tribunal in this
regard read as under:-
" The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree
dated 31.07.2010 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge. In the appeal,
the appellant has averred that though his suit for permanent
injunction has been decreed but the trial court should also have
granted damages to him in view of observations made in the
order dated 02.05.1996 whereby the application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by him was disposed of. Since
the limitation period for filing an appeal is 30 days, the present
appeal ought to have been instituted on or before 30.08.2010.
However, the appellant chose to present the appeal on
01.07.2011 and therefore, there is a delay of about ten months
in filing the same. The condonation of delay has been sought
on the ground that the appellant was suffering from various
ailments. It is important to note that aggrieved from the
impugned judgment and decree dated 31.07.2010, the
respondents herein had also preferred an appeal on 06.09.2010.
The said appeal was registered as RCA No. 37/2010 and was
dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 30.04.2012. A
perusal of the judicial record of the said appeal shows that the
appellant herein entered appearance on 21.09.2010 and
contested the appeal on his own and appeared in the matter on
CMM 966/2013 Page 2 of 3
each and every date of hearing. If the appellant was well
enough to pursue the appeal filed by the respondents herein,
there is no justification for not filing the present appeal within
the period of limitation or within reasonable time thereafter.
Though it is trite that liberal approach should be adopted by the
court while dealing with an application for condonation of
delay but there should be no deliberate inaction or culpable
negligence. The very fact that the appellant diligently pursued
the appeal filed by the respondents and chose to file the present
appeal after the inordinate delay of about ten months clearly
goes to show that there was deliberate inaction on his part.
Since the appellant is an advocate by profession, his inaction is
all the more unexcusable. Considering the above, the
application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant also stands
dismissed."
(underlining added)
4. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition
because the petitioner cannot seek condonation of delay on medical grounds
although during the same period for which condonation was sought, he was
contesting as a respondent in an appeal against the same judgment of the
trial court before the same appellate court.
5. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
