PUSHPA DEVI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed an order dated 26th May 2008 passed by learned ADJ in a suit No. 88 of 2005 whereby learned ADJ dismissed an application filed by the petitioner one under Section 151 CPC praying inter alia that issue regarding limitation be not treated as preliminary issue and should be decided only after taking evidence.

(2.) THE trial court dismissed the application under Section 151 of CPC observing that the issue of limitation was a legal issue and can be decided without leading evidence on the basis of admitted facts of the parties. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was passed by the trial court without hearing the petitioner's counsel and hence the principles of natural justice were not followed.

(3.) A perusal of the order would show that the husband of the plaintiff was present in the Court in person and he made a request for an adjournment on the ground that counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Anupam Sharma was busy in the High court. Likewise, counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 2 also requested for an adjournment. The Court below felt that the parties were hand in glove with each other for seeking adjournment and the applications were kept pending unnecessarily. The trial court, therefore went on to decide the applications without assistance of the advocates of the plaintiff though advocates for the defendants was present there and addressed arguments.