The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles for delay condonation and the clarification of appeal maintainability under Section 96 of the CPC.

CM. 6185/2006:

T.S. Thakur, J.- There is a delay of 40 days in the refiling of the appeal papers in this case. The appellant has sought condonation of the same by filing the present application which is supported by an affidavit sworn by Sh. Amitosh Moitra, one of the partners of the appellant firm. A reading of the application and the affidavit shows that the delay was occasioned mainly because the clerk of the Counsel for the appellant has misplaced the Court fee of Rs. 9,650/- which was purchased but had been inadvertently kept in some other file.

2. Respondent No.2 who appeared in person for himself and on behalf of the remaining respondents stoutly opposed the prayer for condonation. He urged that the ground given by the appellant for condonation was neither cogent nor supported by an affidavit of the clerk who was responsible for misplacing the Court fee. We do not think so. The application sets out a specific case for condonation as indicated above and is supported by an affidavit of the partner of the appellant. We see no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the application and the affidavit. It is fairly well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Statistical Institute v. M/s. Associated Builders & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 335, that prayers for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal papers are not subject to the a rigorous tests which are usually applied to applications under Section 5 of the Act for condoning delay in the filing of the appeals. To the same effect are two Divisions Bench decisions of this Court in S.R. Kulkarni v. Birla VXL Ltd., 1998 V AD (Delhi) 634 and Radhey Shyam Gupta v. M/s. Kamal Oil & Allied Industries Ltd. & Ors., 129 (2006) DLT 346=CO A No. 56-601 b 2005 disposed of on 19.4.2005. Following the said decisions, we allow the present application and condone the delay.

CM. 13433/2004:

There is a delay of 20 days in the filing of this appeal. The present application seeks condonation of the said delay which is supported by an affidavit of the appellant. The application inter alia states that the delay had occurred because the case file was misplaced while the appellant was shifting from B-35 Pushpanjali, Delhi to 5, Western Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. Mr. Bagai drew our attention to certain documents placed on record showing that Sh. Amitosh Moitra, the partner of the appellant had indeeded shifted his address from Pushpanjali to Maharani I Bagh. An intimation regarding the change of address sent to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Oriental Insurance Company bears the acknowledgement of the addressees. In addition, a copy of the possession letter has also been filed as Annexure A-10 to the rejoinder filed by the appellant from a reading whereof it is clear that Sh. Amitosh Moitra had indeed taken over possession of the new premises at Maharani Bagh on 27.7.2004. The version of the appellant that the file was misplaced in the process of shifting of the address, therefore, finds considerable support from the said documents. The delay in any case is not inordinate and is limited to around 20 days. Keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 1987 (2) SCC 107; Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil & Ors., V (2001) SLT 366=(2001) 9 SCC 106; and Shrimant Jadhavrao Anandrao Pawar & Ors. v. Dilip Balvantrao Pawar & Anr., I (2002) SLT 240=(2002) 9 SCC 593, we are inclined to condone the delay on payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-. We accordingly allow the present application and condone the delay. The costs shall be paid within four weeks from today.

RFA 557/2004:

This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.4.2004 whereby the Additional District Judge, Delhi has rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(f) of the CPC in suit filed by the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,37,540/ -. A reading of the judgment and order impugned in the appeal woul