Full Text
M/S HIMLAND HOUSING PVT LTD & ORS ..... Appellants
Through : Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh and Ms.Sangeeta, Advocates.
Through : Mr.Rajendra Sahu with Mr.Vineet Kumar, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal challenges the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.05.2018 by the learned Additional District Judge-02/ Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi/ (hereinafter referred to as the learned „Trial Court‟) in Civil Suit No.247/2017 whereby the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.5.00 lacs was decreed under Order VIII Rule 5(4) and XV Rule 1 CPC after framing of issues and without leading any evidence.
2. The CM APPL No.27532/2019 is moved by the appellant/ applicant seeking condonation of delay of 260 days in filing the appeal on the ground the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree though applied on 25.05.2018, was prepared on 29.05.2018 and obtained on 01.06.2018, yet there was a delay of 263 days in filing the appeal only because of the 14 cases and FIR No.351/2016 filed by the respondent and his family members etc against the appellants herein – the details thereof being given in para No.3 of the application. The appellant alleges that on 2019:DHC:6348 account of being busy in cooperating with the investigation of FIR and follow up of above mentioned 14 cases there was hardly any time and resources left to file the present appeal, hence there was delay and it be condoned.
3. The reason given by the appellant - being busy in another cases – is a casual remark and is certainly not sufficient cause / reason for nonfiling the appeal in time.
4. Admittedly, where each day’s delay needs to be explained, but in the application, the appellant had tried to explain the delay of 263 days by one stroke saying the appellant company was busy in other matters concerning the same parties. No cogent reason for delay is mentioned. There is no merit in the application, hence the application is dismissed.
5. Even on merits though the appellant has alleged the husband of the respondent to be its Chartered Accountant from the year 2007 to 2010 and being well aware of the internal affairs of the appellant company, have been maintaining account books of the appellant, including all other allied official activities, hence made fictitious entries, including an entry to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs in the account of the appellant herein, however, the learned Trial Court noted above assertions and passed the following impugned order:-
6. I also see no illegality in the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Trial Court especially when the suit is decreed after framing of the issues and without calling for the evidence of either side.
7. In view of above there is no merit in the appeal too. The pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
YOGESH KHANNA, J. NOVEMBER 26, 2019