SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Del) 180

High Court Of Delhi
DAYA RAM SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
BHARTOO MAL - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 91 of 1981
Decided On : 05/12/1981

Advocates Appeared:
UMESH MISHRA, YOGESHVAR PRASAD

The filing of a copy of the order of the Court of first instance is essential for filing a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Headnote:

LIMITATION ACT - SECOND APPEAL - FILING OF COPY OF ORDER OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE - ESSENTIAL - TIME SPENT IN OBTAINING COPY OF ORDER OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CANNOT BE EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 12 (3) OF THE LIMITATION ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a tenant, filed an application for fixation of standard rent. The Additional Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 93-75 with effect from 1st March, 1977. On appeal by the landlord, the Rent Control Tribunal set aside the order of the Additional Controller and dismissed the appellant's application for fixation of standard rent. The tenant filed a second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant was required to file a copy of the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal as well as a copy of the order of the Additional Controller. The court further held that the time spent in obtaining the copy of the order of the court of first instance cannot be excluded under Section 12 (3) of the Limitation Act.

Issues: Whether the appellant was required to file a copy of the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal as well as a copy of the order of the Additional Controller.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Order 41 rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 2 (b) of Chapter I-A of Vol. V. of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court to hold that the appellant was required to file a copy of the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal as well as a copy of the order of the Additional Controller. The court further relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Dass Gupta v. Mukat Lal and others to hold that the time spent in obtaining the copy of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be excluded under Section 12 (3) of the Limitation Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal as barred by time.

Sultan Singh

( 1 ) THE appellant is a tenant under the respondent in a portion of the property situated at B-3/18-A, Model Town, Delhi. The agreed rent is Rs. 275. 00 per month. The appellant filed an application for fixation of standard rent. The Additional Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 93-75 with effect from 1st March, 1977. On appeal by the landlord, the Rent Control Tribunal set aside the order of the Additional Controller and dismissed the appellant s application for fixation of standard rent. The tenant filed second appeal, under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ). He also filed this application (C. M. No. 771 of 19-11) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The certified copy of the Tribunal s order dated 10th October, 1980 was applied on 13th October, 1980 and it was ready for delivery on 1st November, 1980. The certified copy of the order of the Additional Controller was also applied on 13th October, 1980 and it was ready for delivery on 18th December, 1980. The appellant on 17th December, 198u filed the second appeal alongwith certified copy of the Tribunal s order dated 10th October, 1980. The registry raised various objections. One of the objections was that the certified copy of the trial court s order should be filed. It appears that the appellant took back the memorandum of appeal on 3rd March, 1981 and refiled-the same with certified copy of the order of the Additional Controller but without affixing court fee stamps on it. The appeal was again returned but refiled on 5th March, 1981 together with the certified copy of the order of the Additional Controller duly stamped.

( 2 ) THE limitation for filing the second appeal under Section 39 of the Act is 60 days. After allowing the time spent by the appellant in obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Tribunal the last date of limitation for filing the appeal was 29th December, 1980. The High Court reopened after winter vacation on 3rd January, 1981. This appeal has been fixed in this Court and therefore the appeal is to be dealt with by this Court acting as a High Court and the same is governed by the normal procedure applicable to second appeals filed in this Court. Order 41 rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and copy of the judgment on which it is founded. Rule 2 (b) of Chapter I-A of Vol. V. of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court as applicable to this Court is as under :

"2 (B) : Every memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by copies of the decree and judgment as prescribed by Order XLI, Rule I of the Civil Procedure Code. In the case of Second Appeals, in addition to the documents prescribed by Order XLI, Rule I of the Code, memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of the court of first instance unless the appellate court dispenses therewith. In all cases which are within the competence of Division Bench motion, duplicate type written copies of memo. of appeal or revision and other essential documents shall be furnished by the appellant or applicant, as the case may be, both in Civil and Criminal case. "thus, under Order 41 rule I of the Code read with the said rule 2 (b), the appellant was required to file a copy of the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal as well as a copy of the order of the Additional Controller. The filing of a copy of the order of the Court of first instance is essential as held by this Court in various judgments. Some of them are Suraj Parkash Bali v. Parmanand 1966 D. LT. 406, Shiv Dutt Sharma v. Prem Kumar Bhatia, 1969 D. L. T. 391, Malik Ohand v. Zubeda Begum and others, ILR (1974) 2 Delhi 160. As already observed, the last date for limitation for filing the appeal was 29th December, 1980. The appellant was entitled to exclude the time spent by him in obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Rent Control Tribunal under



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top