LAWS(DLH)-2011-11-221

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KM PARAMJIT

Decided On November 01, 2011
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
V/S
KM Paramjit and Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned before this court is the order dated 11.03.2011 vide which the application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 78 days in filing the appeal had been dismissed.

(2.) Record shows that a suit for permanent injunction and declaration had been filed by the plaintiff against the two defendants; the prayer in the suit was that the defendants i.e the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority as also the DDA be restrained from abolishing the suit property and interfering in the peaceful possession of the property. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed as the main bone of contention was as to whether the property falls in Noida or in Delhi. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 01.05.2010 had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit property falls within Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi. Appeal against the aforenoted judgment was filed by the petitioner i.e. the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority after a delay of 78 days. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the delay has been explained in para Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) It is not in dispute and as it is borne out from the record that the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2010 had been applied for on 07.05.2010 which was obtained on 17.05.2010; appeal was to be filed till 17.06.2010; it was filed belatedly for the reason that the earlier counsel who was dealing with the matter had been changed; new counsel had requested the earlier counsel for handing over the complete case file which was given to the new counsel only on 26.06.2010; the inspection report dated 07.01.2005 was found missing which was to be obtained before the appeal could be filed; certified copy of these papers were made available only on 28.07.2010; this was the explanation furnished by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal.