Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
Ishwar Dayal Kansal - Appellant
Versus
Motion Picture Association - Respondent
RFA (OS) 28 of 2017
Decided On : 30-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Appellant in person
The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to perform obligations under an agreement within the stipulated time can result in the suit being time-barred.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96 - Delhi High Court Act, 1966, Section 10
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order rejecting the claim under a suit as barred by limitation. The court allowed the delay condonation, stating that the appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit claim was barred by limitation as the appellant failed to perform his obligations under the agreement for sale of the property within the stipulated time.
Issues: The issues included whether there was a legally enforceable concluded contract, whether the suit claim was within time, and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was time-barred based on the communication from the respondent company setting the limitation period running, and the provisions of Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision: The appeal was rejected as it was devoid of merit.
Siddharth Mridul, J.
CM APPL. 15264/2017 (for condonation of five days delay in filing appeal against order dated 20.02.2017)
A perusal of the present application in conjunction with the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by this Court, reflects that institution of the accompanying appeal is delayed by 93 days if the said period is reckoned from 24.11.2014; the date when the impugned judgment came to be pronounced, and only five days if the said period is reckoned from 20.02.2015; when a petition seeking review of the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2014 came to be allowed in part. It is further observed that the appellant, who appears in person, assails both the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2014, as well as, the order dated 20.02.2015; partly allowing the review petition.
In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to demonstrate sufficient cause for condoning the said delay in instituting the accompanying appeal.
The delay is condoned.
The application is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
RFA(OS) 28/2017
1. The present Regular First Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, impugns the judgment and order dated 24.11.2014; as modified by the order dated 20.02.2015 in review, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) No. 1954/2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the subject suit”), whereby, the claim of the appellant under the subject suit was rejected as barred by limitation.
2. The admitted facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are briefly adumbrated as follows:
i. Pursuant to an advertisement issued on behalf of the respondent-company in various newspapers for sale of the property bearing No.27 in Block F, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”), the appellant made an offer for the same on 04.12.1999, followed by a revised offer vide his communication dated 13.12.1999. The appellant vide the said revised offer had offered to pay a total sum of Rs.4 crores as sale consideration for the suit property, out of which an advance amount of Rs.20 lakhs was paid on 14.12.1999;
ii. The revised offer dated 13.12.1999 made by the appellant was accepted by the respondent-company vide letter dated 04.02.2000;
iii. Subsequently, the respondent-company filed an application dated 07.02.2000 with the Income-Tax Department, seeking permission to transfer the suit property to the appellant. Pursuant thereto, the Income-Tax Department issued a “No Objection Certificate” in this behalf on 08.05.2000;
iv. Thereafter, there were numerous communications exchanged between the parties with regard to the sale of the suit property, resting with a communication dated 02.03.2005, whereby, the appellant was asked to attend a meeting at the respondents office on 15.03.2005;
v. On 25.03.2005, the appellant addressed a communication to the respondent-company describing the purported discussions held in the meeting with the latter on 15.03.2005 and, further, asking the respondent-company to handover the possession of the suit property to him against a further part payment of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (rupees one crore twenty lakh). In response thereto, on 19.05.2005, the respondent-company addressed a communication to the appellant stating, inter alia, that the latter had not honoured the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties with respect to the suit property for a period of over five years; the appellant by his conduct demonstrated his unwillingness to conclude the transaction; and, lastly, asserting that the agreement can be “revived only on mutually agreed terms in writing”;
vi. It is an admitted position that no further payments have been made by the appellant from 14.12.1999 until the time he instituted a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction i.e. the subject suit, against the respondent-company on 04.07.2011
