Full Text
Translation output
N
, .
19 and 20
% 13.07.2011
Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, appellant in person.
Mr. Shekhar Dasi, Advocate for the respondents.
+ RSA Nos.163/2010 and 158/2010
The challenge by means of these appeals is to the impugned order of the appellate Court dated 20.4.2010 which has dismissed the appeals by refusing to condone the delay of 55 days in RSA No.163/2010 and
66 days in RSA No.158/2010. The original suits were filed by the appellant herein for recovery of arrears of rent alongwith interest and costs. The suits wjre decreed to the extent as stated in the
, .
19 and 20
% 13.07.2011
Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, appellant in person.
Mr. Shekhar Dasi, Advocate for the respondents.
+ RSA Nos.163/2010 and 158/2010
The challenge by means of these appeals is to the impugned order of the appellate Court dated 20.4.2010 which has dismissed the appeals by refusing to condone the delay of 55 days in RSA No.163/2010 and
66 days in RSA No.158/2010. The original suits were filed by the appellant herein for recovery of arrears of rent alongwith interest and costs. The suits wjre decreed to the extent as stated in the
JUDGMENT
of the trial Court and the appellant herein filed appeals inasmuch as he prayed for grant of interest and costs which were not granted by the decree of first Court. The appellant is a senior citizen and is presently aged about 84 years and is appearing in person. In my opinion, this consideration itself justifies condonation of delay of 55 days in one case and 66 days in another case, even assuming adequate explanation has not been given, which of course is disputed by the appellant. I feel that delay is not so huge that it can be said amount to negligence or want of inaction, and only on which grounds delay cannot be condoned. The Supreme Court in the case of N.
Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 Sc 3222 has held that once there is an application for condonation of delay, some sort of laches always exist, however applications for condonation of delay have to be
RSA Nos.16312010 and 15812010 page 1 of2
2011:DHC:18360
H J(b liberally considered unless and until laches amount to grave negligence. I am also inclined to condone the delay inasmuch as there is a valid issue of payment of interest under the Delhi Rnt Control Act, 1958 on arrears of rent in terms of Section 26 of the said Act.
Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. Impugned order dismissing the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are set aside. Delays in filing the appeals are condoned. The appellate Court is directed to hear and dispose of the appeals in accordance with law.
JULY 13, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
RSA Nos.16312010 and 15812010
2011:DHC:18360
Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 Sc 3222 has held that once there is an application for condonation of delay, some sort of laches always exist, however applications for condonation of delay have to be
RSA Nos.16312010 and 15812010 page 1 of2
2011:DHC:18360
H J(b liberally considered unless and until laches amount to grave negligence. I am also inclined to condone the delay inasmuch as there is a valid issue of payment of interest under the Delhi Rnt Control Act, 1958 on arrears of rent in terms of Section 26 of the said Act.
Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. Impugned order dismissing the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are set aside. Delays in filing the appeals are condoned. The appellate Court is directed to hear and dispose of the appeals in accordance with law.
JULY 13, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
RSA Nos.16312010 and 15812010
2011:DHC:18360