OMWATI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR ARORA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 5th March, 2005 of the Court of Mr. D.S. Bawa, Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Suit No.736/01/99 instituted on 5th March, 1991 by the respondent No.1 / plaintiff Mr. Ashok Kumar Arora for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 16th August, 1997 of immovable property against the respondents No. 2 & 3 Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mr. Vinod Kumar (defendants no.1&2 in the Suit), by directing the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff to pay the balance consideration within one month to the respondents No. 2 and 3 / defendants no.1 & 2 and by directing the respondents No. 2 and 3/ defendants no.1 & 2 to thereafter execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff. The appellant was defendant no.3 in the said Suit.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued and vide ad-interim order dated 20th April, 2005 the operation of the impugned judgment and decree was stayed. The appeal, on 19th July, 2006 was admitted for hearing and the earlier adinterim order made absolute subject to the condition that the appellant does not alienate or transfer the property in question or otherwise encumber the same. Vide subsequent order dated 7th May, 2007 the said condition earlier imposed only on the appellant was extended to the respondent No. 2 and 3/ defendants also. The appeal, on 3rd September, 2014 was dismissed in default but on application of the appellant was on 23rd April, 2015 restored to its original position and posted for hearing on 12th August, 2015. On 12th August, 2015 the matter was adjourned to today. The counsel for the appellant has completed his arguments.

(3.) Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate who has been present since the beginning of the hearing, after the counsel for the appellant has completed his arguments states that Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate is the main counsel for the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff and is out of station and seeks adjournment. Once this appeal, which is 10 years old, has been posted for hearing today, the same cannot be adjourned on such frivolous grounds. Moreover, if a request for adjournment was to be made, it ought to have been made before the commencement of hearing. Accordingly, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal after perusing the trial court record.