Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
SHRI SUDIP KUMAR LAHIRI – Respondent
RSA No.193/2016
Decided On : 26-07-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the condemnation of harassment by public bodies and the emphasis on examining the merits of a case rather than technicalities.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Civil Procedure - Section 100 of CPC - [Section 100 of CPC] - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the second appeal and set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The court emphasized the need to focus on the merits of the matter and condemned the harassment of citizens by public bodies.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Delhi Development Authority (DDA), filed a second appeal against the dismissal of the first appeal due to a delay of 127 days. The court allowed the condonation of delay and decided the appeal on its merits. The case involved a property dispute based on a Will executed by Smt. Pratima Maitra in favor of the respondent, her nephew.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the show cause notice issued by DDA was unjustified as the transfer of the property to the respondent was through a genuine Will and not a sale transaction. The court criticized the DDA for continuing to harass the respondent and dismissed the appeal as an abuse of the legal process.
Issues: The issues involved the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the validity of the Will, and the actions of the DDA in pursuing the case despite the genuine nature of the property transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to focus on the merits of the case and condemned the harassment of citizens by public bodies. It also highlighted the genuine nature of the property transfer through the Will, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed the Vice Chancellor of DDA to constitute a committee to examine the actions of the officials involved and report back within a specified timeframe.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
C.M. No.26509/2016 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RSA No.193/2016 and C.M. Nos. 26508/2016 (stay) and 26510/2016 (condonation of delay)
2. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant/Delhi Development Authority(DDA) against the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 26.10.2015 dismissing the first appeal filed by the present appellant/defendant as being barred by limitation as the appellant/defendant failed to explain the delay of 127 days. I wish the first appellate court instead of going into the technicalities of not condoning the delay, should have looked into the merits of the matter which would have shown that the first appeal filed by the appellant/DDA was wholly frivolous and in fact is only the insistence of the DDA to continue with the present legal proceedings, and, an indication as to how citizens of this country are harassed by officials of the public bodies such as the DDA.
3. I may note that the present appeal is also filed with the delay of 125 days and which is sought to be condoned by filing the C.M. No.26510/2016. In the peculiar facts of this case though there is no valid reason given for seeking condonation of delay except the typical explanation given of sending the file from one official to another, but since continuation of legal proceedings will amount to continuation of harassment of the respondent/plaintiff, not only I am condoning the delay of 125 days in filing this second appeal by allowing C.M. No.26510/2016, I am also condoning the delay in filing the first appeal by setting aside the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 26.10.2015. In the peculiar facts of this case, instead of remanding the matter to the first appellate court to decide on merits, I am deciding the appeal on merits itself.
4. The facts of the case are that one Smt. Pratima Maitra was the owner of the suit plot bearing no.S-89, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi admeasuring 400 sq yds. During her lifetime Smt. Pratima Maitra lost her husband and only son whereafter she started residing with her nephew/plaintiff/respondent/Sh. Sudip Kumar Lahiri. Smt. Pratima Maitra continued to reside with her nephew/Sh. Sudip Kumar Lahiri till her death and therefore executed a Will dated 1.4.1992 whereby the co-ownership in the suit property was bequeathed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/nephew. This Will is duly registered before the Sub-Registrar. It is also noted that by the Will certain other properties of the deceased were jointly bequeathed to the respondent/plaintiff/nephew and the younger brother of the deceased namely one Brig. Sandip Biswas S/o late Shri U. N. Biswas. Since the contents of the Will would be relevant in the facts of the present case, I would seek to reproduce the Will in its entirety as under:-
“WILL
1. I, Mrs. Pratima Maitra, wife of Late Major General S.S. Maitra, resident of S-89, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi as a Hindu widow governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. I make this Will, in super session of my earlier Will dated 6.4.1986. I consider it necessary to revoke my earlier will dated 5.4.1986 and make this will afresh in view of certain changed circumstances in the last six years.
2. My niece Mrs. Ishita Godhino, formerly named Ishica Bagchi d/o Shri S.C. Bagchi fo Jalpaiguri has since been employed in a multinational Bank with a handsome salary. She is quite well off and happily married. Her husband too is a person of substantial means. Accordingly, I wish to substitute her name with that of my younger brother Brig. Sandeep Biswas son of Late Shri U.N., Biswas I am very found of my said younger brother, and hence I make this change from my earlier Will.
3. I am making this Will on first (1st) day of April 1992, on my own accord, without being under pressure from and quarters, in absolutely sound state of mind after proper deliberations and wi
