The delay of over six years in filing an appeal by the MCD cannot be explained away on an averment of a communication error.

Page 1 of 6

$~3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Decided on:07.12.2023

+

RFA 334/2022

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing

Counsel

for

MCD

with

Mr.

Arindam Dey & Mr. Aditya

Pandey, Advocates.

versus

JAI PRAKASH

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.

Rajesh

Yadav,

Senior

Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Bakru,

Mr. Umang Tyagi, Mr. Ayush

Puri, Mr. Desh Deepak, Mr.

Anurag Chajlani, Ms. Vijay Laxmi

Rathi, Mr. Sultan Haider Jafr &

Mr. Kanav Madnani, Advocates.

[M:-9999178173]

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

J U D G M E N T

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 33193/2022 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 33192/2022 (for condonation of delay)

1.

This is an application for condonation of delay of 2108 days in

filing of an appeal against a judgment and decree dated 27.05.2016,

Digitally Signed

By:SHITU NAGPAL

Signing Date:09.12.2023

14:43:30

Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 6

passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North District, Delhi in

CS 239/2015. By way of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court

has decreed a suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for possession of the

suit property bearing No. A-21, Khasra No. 35, Revenue Estate of village

Bharolla, alongwith mesne profits/damages and costs.

2.

According to the filing details available, the present appeal was

filed only on 27.07.2022. Mr. Dhanesh Relan, learned Standing Counsel

for the appellant – Municipal Corporation of Delhi [“MCD”], states that

the appeal was in fact filed in the month of May, 2022, but cleared only

in July, 2022. Having regard to the admitted extent of the delay, this

minor discrepancy need not detain us.

3.

In the application for condonation of delay, MCD has stated that,

after the passing of the impugned judgment, the file was sent to its

learned counsel for filing of the appeal. Counsel required certain

documents to be supplied, which could not be done due to the fact that

the Keshav Puram Zone was created from the Civil Zone of the MCD in

the interregnum, and the files of the case were mixed up with other files.

The application contains no other averments, save for reliance upon the

order of the Supreme Court in Suo Moto W.P.(C) 3/2020 [In Re:

Cognizance for Extension of Limitation], whereby the limitation period

for filing of the proceedings has been extended by approximately two

years during the COVID-19 pandemic.

4.

The appeal was first listed before the Court on 29.07.2022, when

the appellant was granted time to file an additional affidavit to explain the

delay. The additional affidavit was filed on 03.09.2022, and contains

largely the same averments as in the original application. The only

Digitally Signed

By:SHITU NAGPAL

Signing Date:09.12.2023

14:43:30

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 6

additional fact mentioned is that MCD has appointed an inquiry

committee to fix responsibility for the delay.

5.

The judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with the principles

for condonation of delay make it clear that the Court is required to

undertake a fact-based examination of the sufficiency of the cause shown

by the appellant. In Basawaraj vs. Land Acquisition Officer,¹ the

Supreme Court noted that where a case has been presented beyond

limitation, the applicant has to provide sufficient cause for the same, i.e.,

“an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the

court within limitation.”Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for

the respondent, relies on Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh and Others,²

where the Supreme Court observed that even if the term “sufficient

reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned,” and the

Court should take into account “whether such delay could easily be

avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution