GIRDHARI LAL Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant in this Regular First Appeal challenges the judgment dated 20th May, 2005 of the learned Addl. District Judge, whereby she decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for specific performance in respect of property measuring 125 sq. yds 28' x 40' out of Khasra No.299 situated in Revenue Estate of Village Mukhmelpur, Delhi comprising the accommodation mentioned therein and as delineated in the site plan Exhibit PW 1/7. Appellant was further granted two months time to obtain No Objection Certificate to execute sale deed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and then to restore possession of the suit property to the respondents/plaintiffs, failing which they they could get the sale deed executed through due process of law. The judgment is dated 20th May, 2005 while the appeal has been preferred on 30th August, 2007 entailing a delay of 742 days in filing of the appeal.

(2.) CM 12806/2007 is an application for condonation of delay on the ground that review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the court on 30th May, 2007. Application is totally bereft of material particulars. Appellant relies on the judgment of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharti Telenet Ltd Vs. Union of India and ors 2005 AIR Supreme Court Weekly 1755 in support of his plea for condoning the delay. The cited authority would not advance appellant's case inasmuch as availing of remedy of review would not operate as a bar on filing of appeal. Appellant orally submitted that review petition was filed on 16th July, 2005 which itself would be beyond the period permitted for seeking review.

(3.) Be that as it may, we have also heard the learned counsel for appellant on merits in assailing the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant has been a victim of fraud perpetrated by one Balbir Singh Rana who happens to be brother-in-law of Pratap Singh, respondent/plaintiff. In nut shell, it is the appellant's case that Balbir Singh Rana had obtained certain blank signed papers from the appellant on the pretext of securing a loan of Rs.50,000/- for him. As per the appellant, loan was to be arranged and given by Balbir Singh Rana. It is contended that appellant in good faith had executed the blank documents where Balbir Singh Rana had served and made him drink wine.