Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RFA(OS)8/2020 «&; C.M.APPL.3447-3448/2020
SHIV KUMAR TYAGI& ANR Appellants
Through: Ms.Anupama Sharma,Advocate
Through: None
SHIV KUMAR TYAGI& ORS Appellants
Through: Ms.Anupama Sharma,Advocate
Through: None ^ CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHQLI
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE ASHA MENON
28.01.2020
(OSI1430/2012&
(OS)1969/2003
ORDER
1. The captioned appeals are directed against the commonjudgment and decree dated 15.01.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 1430/2012 and CS(OS)1969/2003.The explanation soughtto be offered by. RFAs(OS)8/2020& 9/2020 Page1of[4] 2020:DHC:3900-DB ■ft the appellant/defendant No. 13 in para 3 of the condonation of delay applications is as follows "3. That the undersignedhas been approachedforfilingthe above saidRegular First Appeal. That after going through the entire case records it has transpiredthatfew ofthe documents to be filed are not available with the Appellant. the same wasnecessaryforproper adjudication ofthe instant matter. It is also relevant to mention here that few documentsannexedherewithanannexureareoriginallyinHindi which is requiredto be translatedin English. Therefore in the above circumstances some delay has occurred. The delay so caused was inadvertent and unintentional. As soon as the original document has been received by the counsel undersigned, matter has been draftedanddocument got typed, thus some delay occurredfor the correct appreciation of the documents andfilingofthepresentRegularFirstAppeal. Under such circumstances, it has caused some delay in filing the presentRegular First Appeal. " A f-
2. Wemaynote thatinthe first set ofthe appealpaper book filedinRFA (OS) 9/2020, thereisblankinpara[4] andtheprayer clause as to thenumber of days delay, thoughinthe second set ofthe appealpaper book, thenumber of days has been mentioned as 1279 days. In the second appeal filed i.e. RFA (OS)No. 8/2020, there is adelay of 1433 days infilingthe appeal.
3. On a perusal of the averments made in para 3 above, the only explanationofferedbytheappellant/DefendantNo.13 is that afew documents from the suit records were not available and the same were necessary for a proper adjudication of the appeal. Further, it has been stated that a few documents annexed withthe appeal were originallyinvernacular andwere RFAs (OS) 8/2020 & 9/2020 „, Page[2] of[4] -J' '•y-/ '4\ > required.to be translated into English due to which the delay had,occurred. Claiming thatthe delay caused is inadvertentand unintentional,condonation has been prayed for.
4. To say the least, the explanation sought to be offered for seeking condonation of delay for such a prolonged period of 3 V[2] to 4 years is extremely ambiguous and sketchy and does not deserve to be taken into consideration. The appellant has neither shown just, nor sufficient cause to this court for condoning an inordinate delay of 1433 and 1279 days, respectivelyin filing the accompanying appeals.
5. Further, a perusal of the appeal paper books reveals that learned counselforthe appellanthas onlyfiled atrue copyoftheimpugnedjudgment in RFA(OS)8/2020. She concedes that a certified copy of the impugned judgment has notbeen applied for. Asfor RFA(OS)9/2020,a certified copy was applied for on 20.01.2016 and it wasready and delivered on 25.01.2016. In other words, while the appellant has filed two separate appeals against a common judgment dated 15.01.2016, whereunder two suits i.e., OS (OS) 1430/2012 and CS(OS)1969/2003 have been decided by the leamed Single Judge,forreasons bestknownto him,only one certified copy was appliedfor in CS(OS)1969/2003 subject matter ofRFA(OS)9/2020,whereas no steps were taken to apply for a certified copy ofthe judgment and decree in CS (OS) 1430/2012, subject matter of RFA (OS)8/2020. Even today leamed counsel for the appellant admits that a certified copy ofthejudgment in CS (OS)1430/2012,thesubjectmatter ofRFA(OS)8/2020,hasnotbeen applied for. RFAs(OS)8/2020& 9/2020 Page3of[4] y
6. Havingregardtothelackadaisicalapproach ofthe appellant/Defendant No.13 and the complete absence ofanyplausible explanationforcondoning a delay of1433 days in filing RFA(OS)08/2020 and a delay of1279 days in filing RFA (OS) 9/2020, we have no option but to dismiss both the applications.
7. Consequently, both the appeals, RFA (OS) 8/2020 and RFA (OS) 9/2020 are also dismissed along with the pending applications. /i HIMAKOHLI,J ^:ikjXj^tAAey>>y ASHA MENON,J JANUARY 28,2020 Sm/s