INDRA PRAKASH Vs. K.R. RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent appears in person and seeks adjournment. Adjournment cannot be granted without any reasonable cause, and simply because his advocate chooses not to appear this case has to be adjourned, more so because there is a very limited issue of the first appeal before the first appellate court having been dismissed as barred by delay of 138 days and which order dismissing the appeal as time barred is challenged in this petition.

(2.) It has been held by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 that once condonation of delay is sought, impliedly there is some sort of negligence, however, the same is not enough to dismiss the application for condonation of delay unless there is want of good faith or gross negligence. Supreme Court has observed that a person takes no benefit by filing an appeal with delay.

(3.) In the present case, I note that there are valuable rights of the parties in issue i.e all the petitioners/plaintiffs/landlords seeking possession of the suit premises which was let out to the respondent-tenant, and appeal is filed against dismissal of the application under Order 12, Rule 6 CPC.