Full Text
JUDGMENT
SANJU KUMAR PRASAD …. Petitioner
Through: Shailender Dahiya, Advocate
Through: None
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No MOOL CHAND GARG,J. * CM No.18030/2009 (for condonation of delay)
1. This is an application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The impugned order was passed on 25.05.2009 and the limitation for filing the appeal was expired on 23.8.2009. The appellant had applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on 15.07.2009 and the same was delivered to him on 17.07.2009, thus the appellant was entitled for extension of three days i.e. upto 26.08.2009. However, this appeal was filed on 07.12.2009.
2. The reasons given by the appellant for condoning the delay are as follows:-
3. No document to prove the illness of the daughter of counsel for the appellant or to prove appellant‟s visit to Agra from 29.08.2009 to 07.09.2009 have been filed on record. Admittedly, the appellant has also filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India much belatedly, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 20.10.2009 passed by Justice R.S.Endlaw. The appellant has also not placed on record the copy of the order passed by Justice R.S.Endlaw to support his plea that liberty was granted to the appellant to file this appeal saving the right of limitation.
4. Many a times the merits of the case also becomes a ground to condone the delay. However, in this case the appellant claims to have purchased the property from Sushma Kapoor in terms of agreement to sell dated 31.03.2006 and the said Sushma Kapoor is stated to have purchased the property in question from Sudha Sori vide agreement to sell dated 1.2.2006, whose objections to the decree, which is now sought to be set aside by the appellant in his objections, were dismissed by the learned Predecessor of the court below vide order dated 20.02.2007. It is, therefore, apparent that the litigation which is being continued starting from Krishna Devi till the present appellant is nothing else but an abuse of process of court and thus, calls for no interference or discretion of this Court in condoning the delay.
5. In these circumstances, the application for condonation of delay in fling the appeal is dismissed. Ex.F.A.No.18/2009 In view of the orders passed in CM No. 18030/2009, the Execution First Appeal also stands dismissed. CM No. 18029/2009 Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Application stands disposed of.
MOOL CHAND GARG,J NOVEMBER 25, 2010 „dc‟