Sukhbir vs Rajinder Singh

S.D. Anand, J.—A suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the possession of the house in question was decreed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 8.8.2006.

An appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jhajjar as time barred.

The grievance of the defendant-petitioner is that the impugned order deserves to be invalidated because no opportunity to adduce evidence (in the context of the application for condonation of delay) had been afforded by the learned District Judge. It is common ground otherwise that no issue in the context of application for condonation of delay came to be framed by the learned Ist Appellate Court.

It is apparent from the record that defendant-petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the averment made by him that he was disabled from filing the appeal on account of ill health.

The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Jhajjar shall stand set aside. The matter shall be listed before the learned District Judge, Jhajjar on 30.4.2009 on which date the learned Trial Court shall proceed to frame the issue on the application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before it. The defendant-petitioner shall be entitled to have a fortnight within which he has to conclude his evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent shall have equal amount of time i.e. (a fortnight) to conclude his evidence. The learned District Judge shall dispose of the condonation plea within one week of the conclusion of the evidence.

In the meantime, the parties shall observe status quo.