HARAN ALI SK. AND ORS. Vs. AAINUDDIN DEWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHOULD the Court ignore a blatantly made attempt of misleading the Court by a seeker of justice on the ground that the person(s) approaching the Court is/are illiterate ? This is one of the prime questions, which this application, seeking condonation of delay, raises for determination.

(2.) THE respondent/Opposite party herein instituted, as plaintiff, Title Suit No. 440/1980 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri. By the judgment and decree, dated 21.07.1993 and 27.07.1993, respectively, passed by the learned Munsif, Dhubri, the said Title Suit was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Assistant District Judge, Dhubri, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 46/1993. The appeal ended in passing of a decree, on 20.12.1993, in favour of the plaintiff declaring his rights, title and interest over the suit property and confirming his possession thereon. Following the appellate decree, Title Execution Case 25/95 was initiated in the Court of Munsif No. 1, Dhubri, and in this Title Execution proceeding, the plaintiff filed an application alleging that he had been dispossessed by the defendants after passing of the decree. Based on this application, Misc. Case (J) No. 5/94 was registered and an order of mandatory injunction was passed therein putting back the plaintiff into the possession of the suit land. Against the mandatory injunction so granted, the defendants/judgment debtors preferred Misc. Appeal No. 7/95 in the Court of learned District Judge, Dhubri, and by order, dated 14.9.1995, passed therein, the learned District Judge, Dhubri, allowed the appeal. This appellate order was challenged by the plaintiff -decree holder before this Court by filing Civil Revision No. 467/95 and the same was allowed on 25th February, 2000, by quashing the order, dated 14 -9 -1995, aforementioned. The Title Execution Case No. 25/95 aforementioned, eventually, came to an end upon hearing learned counsel for both the parties. In this execution proceeding, the defendants -judgment debtors filed a petition, on 10.10.2001, seeking stay of the execution proceeding and in this application, at para 3, the judgment debtors stated thus, "That the petitioner No. 1 (Judgment Debtor) is suffering from disease and other petitioners due to unavoidable circumstances could not approach the High Court in time for challenging the decree of T.A. No. 35/1983 and decree of T.Ex. 25/95". In the Title Execution No. 25/95 aforesaid, however, the decree, in question, was executed.

(3.) WHILE seeking condonation of delay, the appellant -applicants have submitted to the effect, inter alia, that after passing of the decree, dated 20.12.1993, aforementioned, they had handed over the brief of their case to their engaged counsel at Dhubri, but the counsel did not take any steps and the judgment -debtors -appellants, being illiterate persons, remained unaware of the same, their counsel expired in the year 1994 and when the fact that their counsel had not taken any steps became known to the judgment -debtors, they preferred this appeal. The explanation for the delay, which has been so offered by the judgment -debtors -applicants, stand completely falsified by the statements made as far back as on 10.10.2001, wherein the same appellants, while seeking stay of the proceedings of Title Execution No. 25/95 aforementioned had stated, as already indicated hereinabove, that the appellant No. 1 had been suffering from disease and other appellants, on account of unavoidable circumstances, had not been able to approach the High Court, in time challenging the decree passed in Title Appeal No. 35/1983 aforementioned and put into execution in Title Execution Case No. 25/95 aforementioned. When the statement made in Para 3 to the application, dated 10.10.2001, aforementioned is juxtaposed along side the application for condonation of delay, it clearly emerges that the judgment debtors have made statements, which are falsified by their own previous statements made on 10.10.2001.