PRADIP KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY Vs. SATISH MIGLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has stated at the Bar that he is not at issue with the appellant whether this appeal is maintainable. He concedes that the appeal challenging the order of the ADJ dated 22.9.2005 whereby he refused to condone the delay of 350 days in filing the appeal, is maintainable. Hence, the question if appeal is maintainable against the impugned order has become redundant and needs no adjudication. This is no longer res integra.

(2.) APPELLANT married the respondent on 30.1.1964 at Calcutta. He lived with the respondent in Delhi since 1970. During his stay at Delhi property bearing No. D-5, Ansal Villas Farm, was purchased in the name of the respondent, allegedly Benami by the appellant, who claims that he paid Rs. 1,52,563 /- as the consideration amount for purchase of the said property.

(3.) THE learned civil Judge, vide order dated 17.8.2004 dismissed the suit of the appellant with cost as being barred by provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act. Against the judgment and decree, appellant filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge on 30.8.2005 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 350 days. The learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned order dated 22.9.2005 dismissed the application as without any sufficient cause and also dismissed the appeal being barred by period of limitation. Hence, the appeal before this Court.