Amrik Singh v. Bhagwan Singh & Ors.

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 2014:DHC:4480 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 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