CHANDA VERMA AND ORS. Vs. DHEERAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred the present two appeals to assail the common order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the First Appellate Court, namely, ADJ-14 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the first appeals preferred by the appellant/defendant being RCA Nos. 20/2014 and 21/2014 have been dismissed as being barred by limitation and, consequently, the first appeals of the appellant have not been considered on merits. The First Appellate Court has disallowed the applications moved by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the impugned order. The said first appeals had been preferred by the appellants/defendants to assail the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Trial Court, namely, Civil Judge-05 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No.155/2012 a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.82,875/- and in the counter claim of the appellant/defendant being CC No. 78/2013.

(2.) The Trial Court had decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for Rs.75,000/- along with interest for the period 01.11.2013 till 31.05.2014 @ 9% p.a. along with pendente lite interest and future interest @ 9% p.a. on the decretal amount from the date of filing the suit till actual realisation of the same. Costs were also awarded to the respondent/plaintiff. The counter claim of the appellant was also partially decreed by holding that the appellant/defendant was entitled to rent @ Rs.7,500/- p.m. for 01.03.2003 to 31.10.2003, i.e. Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff.

(3.) The first appeals were delayed by 189 days when it was so filed. The appellant filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to explain the said delay. The explanation furnished by the appellant was that the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.06.2013 (passed by the Trial Court) was applied for on 10.06.2013 and was made available on 06.07.2013. Thus, the period between 10.06.2013 to 06.07.2013 was liable to be excluded in the matter of computation of limitation. The appellant explained that he could not contact his lawyer and was not aware of the result of the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2013. The appellant no.2 had to go to China for business trip between 20.06.2013 to 25.06.2013 and again between 05.08.2013 to 12.08.2013. He also explained that in the month of September and October, the appellants were not well and were in consultation with the doctor. In this regard, the prescription of chemists bill were placed before the First Appellate Court. In the month of November and December 2013, the son of the appellant suffered from typhoid and was hospitalised between 15.11.2013 to 21.11.2013. After being discharged, he was advised complete bed rest.