IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of allowing a party to contest a case on merits, prioritizing justice over procedural delays in the context of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. Introduction and Brief Facts

1.1 The petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the correctness of the order passed by the First Appellate Court refusing to condone the delay of 5 years 1 month and 3 days in filing the appeal

1.2 In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. Smt.Manju Lata was owner of plot No. 20 measuring 70 square yards. It is alleged that she entered into an agreement to sell with respect to the aforesaid plot in favour of Shiv Charan (respondent No.1 herein). On 15.02.2006, Shiv Charan filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in which Smt.Manju Lata was proceeded against ex parte on 2.04.2000. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 27.07.2011 while directing Shiv Charan to deposit the balance amount within a period of two months. In the execution proceedings, the sale deed in favour of Shiv Charan was executed and the warrants of possession were issued on 25.05.2015. The Bailiff came for the execution of the warrants of possession on the property in question on 15.07.2015. It is claimed by the petitioner-Budh Pal that he came to know of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 27.07.2011. Budh Pal claims that Smt.Manju Lata vide sale deed dated 28.08.2006 sold the aforesaid plot in his favour. On 30.07.2015, the petitioner filed the following three applications:

I) The objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) in the execution proceedings.

II) An application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as a party in the execution proceedings.

III) An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree.

1.3 On 26.08.2016, all the three applications were dismissed by a common order. On 13.09.2016, the petitioner also filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2011 along with an application for condoning the delay of 5 years, 1 month and 13 days. The condonation of delay was sought under Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1963 Act”). He also filed an appeal against the dismissal of the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in which stay of further proceedings before the Executing Court was granted. He also filed Civil Revision No. 6329 of 2016 and Civil Revision No. 6330 of 2016 against the dismissal of objections under Section 47 CPC and order dismissing the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. On 30.09.2016, both the aforesaid revision petitions were disposed of on the very first date of hearing with the following order:-

“By this common order, I shall dispose of two Civil Revision Nos.6329 and 6330 of 2016.

Civil Revision No.6329 of 2016 has been filed against the order dated 26.8.2016.

The petitioner, who is stated to be a subsequent vendee as per the sale deed dated 28.8.2006, had filed an appeal by seeking leave of the Court. The said appeal was accompanied by application seeking condonation of delay, for, against the aforementioned judgment and decree, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and objections under Section 47 CPC were moved in 2015, but the same have been dismissed by the trial Court vide common order dated 26.8.2016. However, against the dismissal of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, an appeal has been filed in the Lower Appellate Court in which an adinterim injunction has been granted, therefore, the present revision petition.

Since the petitioner has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree, I am of the view that in view of the order passed on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, objections become redundant, but the fact remains that the appeal had been accompanied by the application seeking condonation of delay as the petitioner was not properly legally advised and had not availed the proper remedy.

Mr.Kul Bhushan Sharma,