The judgment emphasized the admissibility of evidence from criminal proceedings in civil litigation and the standard of proof required in the two proceedings.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 impugns the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 2007 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi decreeing Suit No.236/03/2002 filed by the deceased respondent no.1/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.6,50,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization against the appellant.

2. Notice of the appeal was issued and vide ex parte order dated 5th November, 2007, subject to the appellant depositing Rs.7.50 lacs in this Court, execution was stayed. The appellant filed CM No.16999/2007 for modification of the order dated 5th November, 2007, seeking stay of execution subject to deposit of Rs.2 lacs only instead of Rs. 7.50 lacs, as ordered. The said application came up before this Court on 12th December, 2007 when the same was dismissed and it was made clear that the stay earlier granted stood vacated. The appeal, on 19th February, 2008 was admitted for hearing and ordered to be taken up for hearing in due course. The respondent no.1/plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal but steps for substitution of her legal representatives were not taken within the prescribed time. Belatedly applications for setting aside of the abatement, for condonation of delay in applying therefore and for substitution of legal heirs of the respondent no.1/plaintiff and for condonation of delay in applying therefore were filed and notice of which was ordered to be issued. One of the legal representatives namely Shri Kalu Ram appeared and accepted notice on behalf of all the legal representatives and though repeatedly took time to file replies to the applications but no replies were filed neither by the legal representatives of the respondent no.1/plaintiff nor by the Advocate who had been intermittently appearing on their behalf. Vide order dated 6th August, 2015, the applications were allowed, delay in applying for setting aside of abatement of the appeal and abatement of the appeal set aside, delay in applying for substitution of legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1/plaintiff condoned and legal representatives substituted. On the same day, final arguments on the appeal were also heard from the counsel for the appellant and need to wait for the counsel for the respondent no.1/plaintiff was not felt as the written arguments were already on record and judgment reserved. The respondent no.2 Shri Babloo, since also deceased and represented through legal representatives, was the defendant in the suit along with the appellant and though the respondent no.1/plaintiff had sought money decree against the appellant and the respondent no.2/defendant jointly and severally but the suit was decreed only against the appellant.

3. The Trial Court record requisitioned in this Court has been perused.

4. The respondent no.1/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises pleading (i) that the respondent no.1/plaintiff is an illiterate lady and the appellant/defendant and the respondent no.2/defendant were father and son and known to the family of the respondent no.1/plaintiff for many years; (ii) that appellant/defendant and the respondent no.2/defendant represented to the respondent no.1/plaintiff that the appellant/defendant was the Manager of Sita Ram Bhandar Trust having land in the Revenue Estate of Village Karkardooma and that the respondent no.2/defendant was the attorney holder of the previous owner of the said land and offering to sell the said land to the respondent no.1/plaintiff; (iii) that the respondent no.1/plaintiff agreed to purchase 200 sq. yds. of the said land for a total consideration of Rs.10 lacs and on 10th December, 1999 made part payment of Rs.6.50 lacs to the appellant/defendant and respondent no.2/defendant and the balance payment was agreed to be made at the time of execution of the documents before the Sub-Registrar;