AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.B. Gupta, J.—Appellant has filed the present appeal in which there is a challenge to the order dated 17th November, 2004 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi. Vide impugned order, the trial court dismissed the applications filed by appellant for restoration of possession as well as for appointment of receiver.
Present appeal was filed on 13th November, 2006. Along with it, applications for condontion of delay in filing and refiling the appeal have been filed u/s 151 of the CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
In these applications, it is stated that appellant filed the present appeal on 13th November, 2006 in which objections were raised. The same could not be refiled within period and there is delay of 636/652 days in refiling this appeal. The delay is not intentional but due to bonafide reason and as such delay be condoned.
As per averments made in these applications there is delay of 636/652 days in refiling of the appeal. The only ground stated for condonation of delay is that "delay is not intentional and due to bonafide reasons". There has been no mention whatsoever as to what are the bonafide reasons. No explanation has been given as to why there has been delay of about two years in filing/refiling of the appeal.
In Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., , Supreme Court observed;
The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone.
In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhvaneswari, , it was observed;
We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the SLP stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.
In the present case, let alone the proof of sufficient cause, it has not even been stated as to what was the sufficient cause for the delay. Since appellant has miserably failed to show the sufficient cause, there is no merit or any substance whatsoever in the present applications for condontion of delay and as such both the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed being time barred.