VIPIN SANGHI, J.

C.M. No.16194/2014 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order 41 Rule 3A CPC for seeking condonation of 2448 days delay in filing the present appeal)

1. This application has been filed by the appellants to seek condonation of 2448 days delay in filing the present second appeal.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2007 passed by Sh. M.C. Garg, Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (as His Lordship then was) in RCA No.8/2006. The appeal has been preferred only on 18.09.2009, thereby entailing the aforesaid delay.

3. The explanation furnished by the appellants to seek condonation of delay is that the appellants had preferred a review petition within the period of limitation before the First Appellate Court, which got decided only on 16.08.2014. The present appeal was filed within the period of limitation from the passing of the review order dated 16.08.2014. The appellants submit that the appellants had been diligently following up the matter in the review application. The appellants submit that the delay is technical in nature on account of the long time taken by the Appellate Court in deciding the review application.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the order dated 15.12.2008 passed in Mohd. Salim Vs. Bhanumati & Others, Application No.116855/2008 in FAO No.673/2008, wherein, in similar circumstances, the Allahabad High Court had condoned the delay of 1 year and 54 days in filing the appeal since the appellant had, in the meantime, filed a review application and the same was pending.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the appellants themselves were responsible for the delay in disposal of the review application and, therefore, the appellants cannot take advantage of the fact that the review application was pending during the said period.

6. Having heard learned counsel, I am of the view that the appellants have been able to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the present appeal. From the conduct of the appellants, it is seen that the appellants did not delay the filing of the review application and filed the same within the period of limitation. The appellants cannot be held responsible for the delay by the First Appellate Court in disposing of the review for nearly seven years. The respondent/ appellant cannot raise a grievance in this regard because the respondent was also participating in the said proceedings. If the respondent was aggrieved by the said delay, it was open to him to oppose the adjournments; not seek adjournments on his own, and; also to seek expedited disposal of the review application by approaching this Court. The delay cannot be said to be deliberate since the review of the appellants was pending.

7. Consequently, the application is allowed and the delay of 2448 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

RSA 261/2014 and C.M. No.16192/2014

8. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 05.10.2007 passed in RCA No.8/2006 by the learned First Appellate Court, namely the learned ADJ/ARCT, Delhi, whereby the first appeal preferred by the respondent/ plaintiff was allowed and the suit preferred by the original plaintiff for possession of the suit property was decreed.

9. The plaintiff filed the original suit bearing Suit No.991/2002 for recovery of possession of the suit property bearing Municipal No.4/18, Katra Kheman Ram, Andha Mughal, Beg Kere Khan, Delhi on the premise that he had inherited the suit property from his father Chaudhary Kheman Ram. He stated that the property was ancestral. He stated that late Sh. Ram Narain – the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant/ appellants was a tenant in respect of the suit property under Chaudhary Kheman Ram. He further stated that Chaudhary Kheman Ram had filed a suit for ejectment of late Sh. Ram Narain, which was decreed. However