Laxmi Devi And Ors. vs Gurgaon Gramin Bank And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

The above mentioned two appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Inward Appeal No. 509 of 2012 is filed against the order passed by the Tribunal bellow on 9th October, 2006. Vide this order, right of the appellants to file a written statement was closed.

In fact, the case had been fixed for arguments when the Counsel prayed for filing written statement. After perusal of the record, the Tribunal below had noticed that the Counsel for the appellants was permitted to file written statement vide order dated 21st March, 2006 subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Yet again, another opportunity was granted on 26th February, 2004 subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs. The finding by Tribunal below is that the costs had not been paid though written statement had been filed. The Tribunal below then had gone on to notice that several opportunities had been allowed since 4th November, 2004, but the LRs of defendant No. 1 chose not to file written statement. On this date also, they prayed for time to file written statement. The Tribunal below accordingly found that they were misusing the process of law and closed their right to file written statement.

The present appeal/Inward No. 509 of 2012 is filed on 4th September, 2012 against the order dated 9th October, 2006. The appeal is, thus, barred by limitation of 2112 days. An application has been filed praying for condonation of this inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The only reason given to explain the delay is that the appellants gained knowledge about passing of the final judgment and decree dated 29th October, 2012 when they received notice dated 10th July, 2012 from the Recovery Officer on 25th July, 2012. The appellants thereafter appeared before the Recovery Officer. As per them, they first time learnt about the order passed in the OA when they appeared before the Recovery Officer. The appellants state that they contacted their Counsel when they learnt to their shock that the Counsel had stopped appearing in the matter long ago and, thus, their right to file written statement had been closed. The appellants would allege that their Counsel failed to inform them about this order dated 9th October, 2006 passed by the Tribunal below. The final judgment thereafter had been passed on 29th February, 2012.

Notice in the application seeking condonation of delay was issued. The respondents have filed reply disclosing that Mr. H.R. Bansal, Advocate was representing the defendants in the OA since 20th July, 2001. Copy of the evidence filed by way of affidavit by the Bank was supplied to the defendants and the defendants had filed rebuttal evidence on 30th October, 2002 after seeking a number of adjournments. Vide order dated 21st March, 2003, Counsel for the defendants in the OA sought time which was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The case was fixed for arguments on 26th February, 2004. The Counsel for the appellant-defendants again sought adjournment, which was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Arguments were heard on 13th May, 2004. It was found that different causes of action had been joined together in the OA which was not permissible.

In the meantime, the OA was dismissed in default, but was restored on 4th November, 2004 and the case was fixed for arguments on 18th January, 2005. On 7th September, 2006, Counsel for the parties were directed to file written submissions and the case was listed for final arguments on 9th October, 2006. It is for the first time then that the Counsel for the appellant-defendants prayed for time to file written statement though had been appearing before the Presiding Officer as noted above. Opportunity to file written statement with costs had earlier been granted and thus order was passed closing their right to file written statement.

Thereafter, the parties have been appearing through their Counsel and the final order was passed on 29th February, 2012. It is pointed out that the Counsel for the appellants had appeared before the Presiding Officer on 15.12.2006, 22.2.2007, 18.4.2007, 3.4.2008, 5.8.2008, 3.10.2008, 8.12.2008, 15.1.2009, 16.2.2009, 17.12.2009, 8.1.2010 and 19.1.2010. Accordingly, it is stated that the averment made in the application that the appellants came to know about the order dated 9th October, 2006 on 25th July, 2012 is nothing but a white lie.

I have considered the submissions made before me. The appellants have failed to explain inordinate delay of nearly six years in filing this appeal. Virtually, no reasons are forthcoming to explain this delay. The reasons advanced by the appellants are clearly false and misleading. First the appellants have slept over their rights in raising the challenge at an appropriate time and now have chosen to rely upon false averments made in the application to seek condonation of this delay, I find no reason or justification to condone this delay, which has remained unexplained.

By now, the main OA has also been decided which is separately impugned in the second appeal (Inward No. 510 of 2012) filed by the appellants. It is rather unfortunate to notice that the present case is pending adjudication since 1992. The suit was filed in the year 1992 and was transferred to the DRT in the year 1995. Even after expiry of 22 years, proceedings have not been finalized. Even the appeal against the final order in OA is filed with a delay of 143 days. Challenge is made to order dated 29th February, 2012 in this Appeal No. 510 of 2012. Since this appeal is filed with delay, the same is also accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. Reasons given in support of prayer for condoning the delay again are that the appellants gained knowledge of the judgment dated 29th February, 2012 on 25th July, 2012 after receiving notice dated 10th July, 2012 from the Recovery Officer. The same grounds are repeated in verbatim in this application as well to make a prayer for condoning the delay. Reference is already made to the fact that the Counsel had been appearing on behalf of the defendants before the Tribunal below. The reasons advanced by the appellants in support of their prayer for condoning the delay accordingly are found misleading and false. In fact, there is virtually no explanation forthcoming to explain this delay. The appellants ought to have known and appreciated the fact that while seeking condonation of delay they are required to explain each and every day's delay and ought not to have rest contended by giving this vague and misleading ground in support of their prayer for condonation of delay. I am, thus, of the view that there is no reason forthcoming to this inordinate delay and accordingly both the appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay.