PARVATI Vs. ANAND PARKASH ALIAS NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 4th January, 1980 of an Additional District Judge, Delhi dismising the appeal filed by Sh. Hans Raj, deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants against judgment and decree dated 13th July, 1978 of a Subordinate Judge 1st class whereby the suit of the plaintiff respondent Shri Anand Parkash for possession of the premises in suit bad been decreed with costs. A notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted and in response to the said notice the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that this appeal is barred by time. The facts on the basis of which the said objection is sought to be raised are as under: The appeal was originally filed by the appellants through their counsel on 1st May, 1980. On security and examination thereof the office pointed out the following defects :

(2.) The appeal was accordingly returned by the Deputy Registrar of this court to counsel for the appellants on 3rd May, 1980 with the direction that the same be refiled within a week. It would, however, appear that counsel for the appellants did not comply with the said direction within the prescribed period and be refiled the appeal after removing the objections as late as 4th February, 1981 i.e. after the lapse of nearly nine months. However, he recorded the following cryptic note while refiling :

(3.) In his reply to the show-cause notice, the respondent has pointed out that the appeal had not been refiled deliberately and it was only after the respondent-Decree Holder had takenout execution and sought attachment of the goods of the appellants that the latter thought it fit to refile the appeal. This, according to him, not only rendered the appeal barred by time but also amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.