Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) No. 246/2014 28th July , 2014 INDRA PRAKASH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Adv.
Through: Respondent in person
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Respondent appears in person and seeks adjournment. Adjournment cannot be granted without any reasonable cause, and simply because his advocate chooses not to appear this case has to be adjourned, more so because there is a very limited issue of the first appeal before the first appellate court having been dismissed as barred by delay of 138 days and which order dismissing the appeal as time barred is challenged in this petition. 2014:DHC:3529
2. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of
3. In the present case, I note that there are valuable rights of the parties in issue ie all the petitioners/plaintiffs/landlords seeking possession of the suit premises which was let out to the respondent-tenant, and appeal is filed against dismissal of the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
4. I put it to the respondent who is personally appearing that I can allow the appeal with his consent subject however payment of costs but the respondent still seeks adjournment.
5. In this view of the matter, I do not find that delay of 138 days is such great delay for the first appeal to be dismissed as time barred especially in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra).
6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the delay of 138 days in filing of the first appeal before the first appellate court is condoned and the first appellate court will now decide the first appeal in accordance with law.
7. Parties to appear before the District and Session Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 26th August, 2014 and the District and Sessions Judge will mark the first appeal for disposal to a competent court in accordance with law. JULY 28, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib