GUNJAN KUMAR Vs. VIPIN PARWANDA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The abovementioned application has been filed by defendant No.1 under Section 151 CPC seeking restoration of the Chamber Appeal being O.A. No.51/2014 and the accompanying application being I.A. No.5953/2014, which were dismissed by this Court in default and for non-prosecution by order dated 21st April, 2015. Counsels for the parties have also addressed their submissions in O.A. as well as in the application for condonation of delay.

(2.) It is stated in the application that on 21st April, 2015, the counsel for defendant No.1 could not reach the Court as she was held up in the urgent matter before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. A junior Advocate was supposed to appear in the matter for the purpose of adjournment. However, neither the junior Advocate appeared before Court nor defendant No.1 who was also directed to be present in the Court. It is further stated that the non-appearance on the part of the Advocate was neither wilful nor deliberate. Even otherwise, the defendants have a good case on merits.

(3.) The plaintiff has strongly opposed the prayer made in the application as well as in O.A. filed against the order dated 10th September, 2013 passed by the Joint Registrar. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for injunction and possession. The case of the plaintiff is that despite of execution of the sale deed and receipt of the entire sale consideration, the possession of the suit property has not been handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants who are the sellers of the suit property. Defendants No.1 and 2 are husband and wife and they are equal co-owners of the suit property. Defendant No.1 executed the sale deed for himself as well as on behalf of defendant No.2 (his wife) pursuant to the registered Power of Attorney executed by her. By this action, the plaintiff is also seeking possession of the suit property.