LIYAKAT ALI Vs. ANUPAM CHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for condonation of delay of 339 days is filed in the appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.3.2010 decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for possession and injunction.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant No.2 led no evidence whereas the respondents/plaintiffs filed the necessary documentary proof of title in their favour with respect to the suit property. The respondents/plaintiffs were also shown as owners in the revenue record and which documents were proved and exhibited. A Local Commissioner also gave a report in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs of the appellant seeking to take forcible possession by observing that the partitioned wall was newly constructed. Once the respondents/plaintiffs are shown to be the owners by means of title documents, being the sale deed, the trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit for possession and injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

(3.) IN my opinion, the aforesaid facts which are stated are narration of facts as differentiated from sufficient cause. The expression sufficient cause means statement of facts which prevented a person from filing the appeal. Surely, a person who contests the case to the hilt cannot take up a stand that he does not know that he was not required to appear for cross-examination after filing of evidence by way of affidavit. I am informed by learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that in execution of the impugned judgment and decree possession of the suit property has already been taken.