DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. B P SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner feeling aggrieved by a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 and under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC based on the report of the Local Commissioner, filed an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dated 31/03/1997. Delay was sought to be condoned on the ground that the petitioner applied for copy of order and decree dated 17/07/1996 on 9/08/1996 and the same was received on 1 3/09/1996 by the counsel. It was subsequently sent to the DDA. It was contended that "...thereafter due to procedural delay in the office of the DDA and the decision taken for filing the appeal, the file was subsequently entrusted to the present counsel for filing the present appeal." It was further contended that "...the appeal was accordingly drafted and immediately after obtaining the signature of the concerned officer the present appeal is being filed on .3.97."

(3.) This application was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order on the ground that not a single date has been mentioned as to the movement of the file after 13/09/1996. Such kind of an explanation would hardly make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The learned Additional District Judge relying upon the judgment in DDA v. Ramesh Kumar, 1996 (1) AD (Delhi) 431 and M/s. M.L.Mahajan v. DDA & Another, 1992 RLR 242. dismissed the application. Consequently, the appeal also failed.