BALDEV SINGH Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 22nd March, 2004 of the Court of Shri O.P. Gupta, Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in RCA No.25/1993 (Old No.150/82)] allowing the Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree [dated 22nd July, 1982 of the Court of Shri S.K. Tandon, Sub-Judge, First Class in Suit No.1166/1972 (filed in the year 1969)] of dismissal of the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for ejectment of the appellants/defendants from immovable property, and axiomatically passing a decree in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and against the appellants/defendants of ejectment of the appellants/defendants from plots no.2 to 6 and 8 to 10 along with superstructure thereon, as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW4/1, situated in Khasra No.71, Village Humayunpur, Delhi.

(2.) This appeal along with an application for condonation of delay in filing thereof came up first before this Court on 29th August, 2005 when, without considering whether the appeal entailed any substantial question of law, which is the sine qua non for entertaining or admitting a Second Appeal, notice of the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal was issued. Vide subsequent order dated 31st January, 2006, the execution proceedings were stayed.

(3.) Before even the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal could be considered, applications for substitution of legal representatives of the parties to the appeal and an application for impleadment as a party to the appeal came to be filed and which delayed adjudication even of the aspect of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Finally, vide order dated 25th November, 2016, the delay in filing and re-filing this appeal was condoned and the appeal listed for consideration. However, applications continued to be filed, and on none of the subsequent dates also, notice of the appeal was issued or it was recorded that this Second Appeal entailed any substantial question of law. However the counsel/s for some of the respondents/plaintiffs, to whom notice of applications were issued, have been appearing.