DDA Vs. ISHWAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of CPC against impugned order dated 29.08.2006 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Delhi has dismissed the applications filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act.

(2.) Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:- Two suits were filed by respondent/decree holder against appellant/Judgment Debtor. The first suit was filed by respondent/decree holder in the year 1991, i.e. Suit No. 497/1991 against appellant/decree holder whereby respondent/decree holder had sought decree of permanent injunction in his favour restraining appellant/Judgment Debtor, its employees, agents not to dispossess respondent/decree holder from suit property measuring about 1489 sq. yds. situated in Khasra No. 357/2, in the revenue estate of Salempur, Mazra Madipur, Delhi. The said suit was filed before Sub Judge, 1st class, Delhi. The other suit, i.e. Suit No. 4658/1992 was filed before this court about the same suit property wherein decree of permanent injunction was sought restraining appellant/Judgment Debtor from demolition of any part of structure existing on aforesaid suit property. Both the cases were consolidated vide order dated 23.05.2002 of this court. Due to increase in pecuniary jurisdiction of this court, the aforesaid suits vide order dated 11.09.2003 of this court were transferred to learned District Judge, Delhi. The panel advocate of appellant who was contesting the said cases, vide letter dated 11.09.2003 returned the files to Chief Legal Advisor, DDA for entrusting the cases to some other lawyer. On 24.09.2003, the Chief Legal Advisor assigned the case to Sh. Ashish Sharma, Advocate. Power of Attorney was also signed by the competent authority in favour of said lawyer. It is alleged that the said counsel did not inform the progress of the case after its entrustment. Thereupon, the Senior Legal Officer/Land Management of appellant wrote a letter dated 20.09.2004 enquiring about the status of the said cases. The said lawyer informed that he could not find the said cases in the list of transferred matters despite efforts made by him and as such returned the file on 29.09.2004 to the office of Sr. Legal Officer/Land Management. Thereupon, the file was sent to JLO for supplying the necessary details of the said cases. On 29.10.2004, JLO of appellant furnished complete details by informing that the said cases were assigned to Sh. D.S. Pawaria, learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi. On 02.11.2004, the said cases were assigned by the appellant to another panel lawyer for furnishing the status of the cases. On 16.11.2004, panel lawyer informed the Senior Legal Officer of appellant that the court of Sh. D.S. Pawaria, learned ADJ had passed an ex parte judgment/decree in the matter. Thereafter, certified copy of ex parte judgment/decree was applied through concerned official of department. On 13.12.2004, the certified copy of judgment and decree dated 31.07.2004 was made available. Thereupon, the matter was sent for legal opinion of panel lawyer. The panel lawyer was not available for few days as he was out of station. On 06.01.2005, legal opinion was received in the matter. Thereupon, file was routed through various channels, i.e. OSD (Land Management), Senior Legal Officer (Land Management), Deputy Legal Advisor (Land), Chief Legal Advisor, CIM, CLA, Senior Legal Officer (Land Management) and CLM and it was decided to move an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 31.07.2004. Accordingly, the matter was entrusted to another panel lawyer by Chief Legal Advisor of appellant on 04.02.2005. The Power of Attorney was also got signed in favour of said lawyer and necessary papers were handed over. Thereafter, appellant moved separate applications in the aforesaid two suits under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

(3.) Learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi dismissed the said applications vide impugned order dated 29.08.2006. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal is filed.