Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)832/2018&CM APPL.29302/2018
VINOD KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Aman Singh,Advocate,
CM(M)832/2018&CM APPL.29302/2018
VINOD KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Aman Singh,Advocate,
VERSUS
RANJITSINGH Respondent
Through:
# And
Through:
# And
CM(M)835/2018&CM APPL.29313/2018
VINOD KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Aman Singh,Advocate.
VINOD KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Aman Singh,Advocate.
VERSUS
RANJITSINGH Respondent
Through:
Through:
CORAM;
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
0/„ 09.10.2018 rM APPC.29300&29.301/2018(Ex.)
^ rM APPL.29311 A 29312/2018(Ex.)
Exemptionsallowedsubjectto alljustexceptions.
The applicationsstand disposed of.
0/„ 09.10.2018 rM APPC.29300&29.301/2018(Ex.)
^ rM APPL.29311 A 29312/2018(Ex.)
Exemptionsallowedsubjectto alljustexceptions.
The applicationsstand disposed of.
CM(M)832/2018&CM(M)835/2018 ^ ^
2018:DHC:9316 -r > CMfM^832/2018& CM APPL.29302/2018
CM(M\835/2018& CM APPL.29313/2018 It is submitted on behalf ofthe petitioner that the petitions be treated as FAOs in view ofthe prayers made in the petition assailing the impugned orders dated 03.02.2018 in Eviction Petition No.39/14 and Eviction Petition No.38/14 of the Court of the learned
ARC/ACJ/CCJ,New Delhi District,Patial House Courts,Delhi.
Vide the present appeals, the appellant assails the impugned order dated 03.02.2018 whereby the applications under Section 5 &
14 ofthe Limitation Act,1963 were dismissed and as a consequence thereof,an application under OrderIX Rule 13 ofthe CPC nothaving been filed within the period oflimitation was consequently dismissed.
The applications seeking stay ofthe operation ofthe execution ofthe judgments dated 16.07.2015 in the cases were also dismissed.
A bare perusal ofthe impugned orders itselfreflect the lack of bona fides of the petitioner in filing the applications seeking condonation of delay inasmuch as the proceedings reflect that the appellant became aware ofthe ex judgmentdated 16.07.2015 in the month ofNovember,2015, whereafter objections were filed and the applicant i.e. the appellant herein challenged the locus of the petitioner ofthe case and also made assertions to the effect that the summonsofthe petition had notbeen served and interaliasoughtthat the expartejudgment be set aside inasmuch as the processserver had acted atthe instance ofthe petitioner which prayer was dismissed vide an order dated 07.12.2015,no appeal wasfiled againstthesame by the present appellant subsequent to filing of objections which were dismissed and appeal was filed by the present appellant which was also withdrawn. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application for restoration of that appeal which was dismissed in default and the application for restoration ofthe appeal was dismissed by the Courtof the District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi vide order dated
19.12.2017. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court and withdrew it on 21.12.2017 and thereafter moved an application under
Order IX Rule 13 ofthe CPC and an application under Sections 5 &
14 ofthe Limitation Act, 1963.
As rightly observed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner i.e. the appellant herein had explored all legal remedies available and only after failing in all his endeavours, to keep the issue alive, filed the application seeking condonation ofdelay of2- 2 Y2 years between the date ofjudgmentand filing ofthe application.
Thus,there is no merit in the prayer made by the petitioner and thus the present appeals and all accompanying applications are dismissed.
ANU MALHOTRA,J OCTOBER 09,2018/NC
2018:DHC:9316 -r > CMfM^832/2018& CM APPL.29302/2018
CM(M\835/2018& CM APPL.29313/2018 It is submitted on behalf ofthe petitioner that the petitions be treated as FAOs in view ofthe prayers made in the petition assailing the impugned orders dated 03.02.2018 in Eviction Petition No.39/14 and Eviction Petition No.38/14 of the Court of the learned
ARC/ACJ/CCJ,New Delhi District,Patial House Courts,Delhi.
Vide the present appeals, the appellant assails the impugned order dated 03.02.2018 whereby the applications under Section 5 &
14 ofthe Limitation Act,1963 were dismissed and as a consequence thereof,an application under OrderIX Rule 13 ofthe CPC nothaving been filed within the period oflimitation was consequently dismissed.
The applications seeking stay ofthe operation ofthe execution ofthe judgments dated 16.07.2015 in the cases were also dismissed.
A bare perusal ofthe impugned orders itselfreflect the lack of bona fides of the petitioner in filing the applications seeking condonation of delay inasmuch as the proceedings reflect that the appellant became aware ofthe ex judgmentdated 16.07.2015 in the month ofNovember,2015, whereafter objections were filed and the applicant i.e. the appellant herein challenged the locus of the petitioner ofthe case and also made assertions to the effect that the summonsofthe petition had notbeen served and interaliasoughtthat the expartejudgment be set aside inasmuch as the processserver had acted atthe instance ofthe petitioner which prayer was dismissed vide an order dated 07.12.2015,no appeal wasfiled againstthesame by the present appellant subsequent to filing of objections which were dismissed and appeal was filed by the present appellant which was also withdrawn. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application for restoration of that appeal which was dismissed in default and the application for restoration ofthe appeal was dismissed by the Courtof the District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi vide order dated
19.12.2017. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court and withdrew it on 21.12.2017 and thereafter moved an application under
Order IX Rule 13 ofthe CPC and an application under Sections 5 &
14 ofthe Limitation Act, 1963.
As rightly observed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner i.e. the appellant herein had explored all legal remedies available and only after failing in all his endeavours, to keep the issue alive, filed the application seeking condonation ofdelay of2- 2 Y2 years between the date ofjudgmentand filing ofthe application.
Thus,there is no merit in the prayer made by the petitioner and thus the present appeals and all accompanying applications are dismissed.
ANU MALHOTRA,J OCTOBER 09,2018/NC
CM(M)832/2018& CM(M)835/2018 Page3of3
JUDGMENT