Point of law – Condonation of delay - Appellant had been served and had knowledge of the filing of the suit, but she voluntarily chose not to enter appearance. Since the appellant failed to appear, she was proceeded ex-parte – Hence, not entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as even the prior proceeding initiated by the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J:

CM APPL. 13954/2021

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

RFA(OS) 13/2021 & CM APPLs. 13952/2021, 13953/2021

1. The present case reflects the bane of the Indian judicial system, namely, that there is no finality attached to any judicial proceeding. Litigants think that they can ‘hop on and hop off the case’ at any stage without any consequence using the slogan ‘pure justice’.

2. It is pertinent to mention that present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 18th November, 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS) No 1996/2008, accompanied by an application being C.M.No.13952/2021 seeking condonation of delay of two thousand three hundred and thirty one (2331) days under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. By virtue of the impugned order and judgment, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the compromise application filed by the contesting parties and to decree the Civil Suit. The impugned order and judgment dated 18th November, 2013 passed in CS(OS) 1996/2008 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“IA No.18213/2013 (Under order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC)

[The settlement is taken on record and the suit is disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The application is disposed of.

CS(OS) 1996/2008

Defendant nos.2, 3, 4A, 4B, 6, 7 and 8 have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.04.2011. The matter has been settled between the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 & 5. Plaintiff and defendant no.5 are present in court. The Affidavit of defendant no.1 in support of application being IA No.18213/2013 is already on record. The parties have settled the matter on the following terms:-

(a) That the plaintiff does not press for his claim that Dr.Chander Kanta Khan was not entitled to 50% share of 1/9th share of 1/6th share relinquished by Smt.Tara Mani Singh. Dr. Chander Kanta Khan will be entitled to 50% share of 1/9th share of 1/6th share of late Shri Shiv Dayal Singh in the suit property. Dr. Chander Kanta Khan will pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/= [Rupees Fifteen Lacs only] to Smt. Tara Mani Singh on the sale of hear 50% share of 1/9th share of late Shri Shiv Dayal Singh in the suit property.

(b) That Dr.R.S. Chauhan, the defendant no.5 herein, had not signed on the original Family Settlement Deed dated 23rd December, 1999. Dr.R.S.Chauhan has got no objection if the Relinquishment Deed executed by Smt.Tara Mani Singh in respect of her share in the suit property in favour of Dr.R.S. Chauhan is revoked. It has further been agreed among the parties that Dr.R.S. Chauhan will deem to have signed on the original Family Settlement Deed dated 23rd December, 1999.

(c) That Dr.R.S.Chauhan will continue to reside in 1/6th portion of late Shri Shiv Dayal Singh till the sale of the entire suit property.

(d) That the parties have further agreed that 1/6th share of late Shri Shiv Dayal Singh shall be sold as one unit along with remaining 5 units in the suit property.

(e) That every effort will be made to sell the suit property to the highest bidder on or before 31st March 2014.

(f) That each of the shareholders of the suit property will be entitled to get the sale proceeds of the suit property in proportion to their respective shares. As already mentioned above, Dr. Chander Kanta Khan will be paying a sum of Rs.15,00,000/= [Rupees Fifteen Lacs only] to Smt. Tara Mani Singh at the time of the sale of the suit property.

(g) That one portion of the suit property is in occupation of J D Tytler School, which has fallen to the share of Dr.R.S. Chauhan, defendant no.5 herein. The parties will make joint efforts to get the said portion vacated from the said tenant.

(h) That the entire expenditure to be incurred for getting the said portion in occupation of J D Tytler School vacated will be shared equally by the parties in