AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Merathia, J.—This C.M.P. has been filed for restoration of Second Appeal No. 350 of 2004, dismissed for non prosecution on 5.5.2009 and I.A. No. 287 of 2010 has been filed for condonation of delay of about 219 days.
No one appeared on behalf of the Appellant in Second Appeal on 28.4.2009. However, the case was passed over for that day. Again when the case was taken up on 5.5.2009, no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant on repeated calls. Accordingly, it was dismissed for non prosecution.
It is submitted that due to inadvertence, the case could not be marked on the said dates and therefore no one appeared.
The said ground is not satisfactory for restoring the Second Appeal.
Moreover, the explanation for condoning the long delay of about 219 days is also not satisfactory.
However, by order dated 11.4.2011, this Court permitted the Appellant to argue the Second Appeal on merit and accordingly the matter was adjourned.
S.A. No. 350 of 2004
Heard.
This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 2.4.2004, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Chatra, in Title Appeal No. 54/1993, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1993, passed by learned Sub Judge-1, Chatra in Title Suit No. 5 of 1990.
Mr. H. Waris, learned Counsel for the Appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds including that re-appreciation of evidence by this Court is necessary in this case as the Plaintiff-Appellant''s suit has been dismissed on the basis of the recitals made in the registered sale deed, which was cancelled subsequently and about which declaration was sought that it is not binding on the Plaintiff-Appellant being without consideration and being obtained by fraud.
This suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 3.10.1988 executed by him in favor of the Defendant-Respondent was null, void, inoperative and not binding on him as it was without consideration and was brought into being by playing fraud.
After considering the respective cases of the parties and the materials brought on record by them, both the courts below dismissed the Plaintiff-Appellant''s suit and the appeal. Both the courts below have rightly held that Plaintiff could not prove his case.
In my opinion, even if the delay in filing the restoration application is condoned, and the Second Appeal is restored, no substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal.
In the result, the C.M.P., I.A. No. 287 of 2010 and the Second Appeal are dismissed.