Delay in appeals must be satisfactorily explained; insufficient proof of karewa marriage leads to dismissal of property claims.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

CM-14792-C-2019

1. Prayer in the present application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 800 days in refiling the accompanying appeal, which is duly accompanied by an affidavit of the clerk of learner counsel for the appellant.

2. The only reason cited by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant in the said application for cause of delay of 800 days in refiling the appeal is as under:-

'That when the case was returned back with some objections and collected by the clerk Sh. Ramesh to the counsel. Thereafter collected the brief which was lying in objections but then he put the paper book in the miscellaneous brief alongwith some blank vakalatnamas and proforma of memo of parties but the clerk to the counsel for the appellant inadvertently placed the miscellaneous brief among the decided briefs in the office of the counsel for the appellant, but it skip from his mind to take out the paper book of the present appeal from the miscellaneous brief. It also skip from the mind of the counsel for the appellant due to pressure of work. Though the appellants were told that the appeal has been filed and they will be apprised about the status but then it skipped from the mind. Now, the appellants contacted the counsel on 16.05.2019 and inquired about the status of their appeal. Then it was learnt that the appeal is still in objection and after searching the paper book by the clerk to the counsel for the appellant/applicant, it was found in the above mentioned brief amongst the decided cases. Thereafter, the objections were removed and the appeal was refiled on 20.05.2019 without causing any further delay. But the registry again raised objection on 14.09.2019 and it was again refilled on 25.09.2019 after removing all the objections. But in this course a delay of 800 days occurred which is not malafide and intentional but due to the above stated genuine reasons and due limitations of human faculty. '

3. The said reason is vague and general and does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of extraordinary and inordinate delay of 800 days. It is established position in law that delay of each day has to be explained.

4. Hence, the present application is dismissed.

RSA-5226-2019 (O&M)

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff and performa defendants No. 2 and 3 are the owners of 1/4th share of Sh. Ram Bhagat in the suit land as described in the plaint; and declaration to the effect that defendant No.1-Rajwanti is not the widow of Ram Bhagat; alongwith consequential relief of injunction mandating the revenue authorities from restraining the sanctioning of the mutation No. 1839 in favour of defendant No.1, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the only dispute in the present case is regarding the alleged karewa marriage of defendant No.1 with Ram Bhagat. It is submitted that defendant No.1 was previously married to Udey Bhan, who was real brother of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3. Defendant No.1 is the widow of Udey Bhan. It was the case of defendant No.1 that she along with her son Satpal had inherited 1/4th share of Udey Bhan, being his legal representatives. Defendant No.1 had further stated that upon the death of Udey Bhan, she had performed karewa marriage with Ram Bhagat. Ram Bhagat was also the real brother of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3. Ram Bhagat was the co-sharer in the land of their father Kanhaiya. Ram Bhagat had remained unmarried, issueless and had not