YOGESH JAIN Vs. SATISH KUMAR DHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 9 th November, 2010 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (Central -13), Delhi of dismissal of CS No.50/2009 filed by the appellant consequent to the appellant having failed to lead any evidence inspite of repeated opportunities. The appeal is accompanied with application for condonation of 984 days delay in filing the same. The reason given for the delay is that the appellant, after dismissal of the suit, first filed a petition under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and during the pendency of that proceeding was advised to file a CM(M) petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned judgment and decree and on 2 nd July, 2012 filed CM(M) 806/2012 and which was withdrawn on 24th September, 2013 with liberty to prefer this appeal.

(2.) THE appeal came up before this Court first on 20th November, 2013 when the counsel for the appellant was asked to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court that the appellant/plaintiff had a good case on merits. Though the appellant/plaintiff, in the Memorandum of Appeal, has challenged the impugned judgment / order on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge could not have dismissed the suit but should have returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC and for which purpose an application had been filed, but the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on 20th November, 2013 did not urge the said argument and instead contended that the learned Additional District Judge, on the failure of the appellant/plaintiff to lead any evidence, should have only closed the evidence of the appellant/plaintiff and listed the suit for evidence of respondents/defendants, instead of on the same day dismissing the suit.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on 20th November, 2013 sought time to file the copy of the order framing the issues. While so adjourning the matter, the trial court record was also requisitioned.