* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of order : 6^th February, 2024 + RFA 138/2021, CM APPL. 8029/2021, CM APPL. 8032/2021 & CM APPL. 21242/2021 SMT BITTOO ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Pradeep Kar, Mr.Umesh Kumar and Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocates versus SMT SANTOSH & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Dr.V.P.Singh, Mr.Abhay Sagar, Mr.Yashasvi Singh and Mr.Ashish Bharti, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

CM APPL. No. 8030/2021(Condonation of delay in filing)

1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant under Section 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1963, (“CPC” hereinafter) seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Allow the present application for condonation of delay and condoned the delay of 955 days in filing of the present appeal.

(b) Pass any other order or direction keeping in view the facts of the present case in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondents.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARIKRAFA 138/2021 Page 1 of 14

2. The applicant/appellant has filed the accompanying Regular First Appeal (“RFA” hereinafter) challenging the decree dated 10^th April, 2018, passed by the learned Trial Court wherein a decree of possession was passed in favour of respondent no.1 herein, thereby, directing the defendants therein to vacate and handover the actual physical possession of the Suit property. Further, the learned Trial Court also passed a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the respondent no.1 herein, thereby, restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating, and /or parting with the possession of the said Suit property.

3. The applicant/appellant has filed the instant application seeking condonation of delay of 955 days in filing the accompanying RFA.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant submitted that the instant application has been filed with bona fide intentions and there is a sufficient cause on the part of the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay.

5. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 filed an Execution Petition dated 5^th July, 2018, before, thereafter in furtherance to which a notice was issued to the applicant/appellant. Further, the applicant/appellant preferred an application dated 27^th October, 2018, under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside of the ex-parte decree, which was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 2^nd February, 2019.

6. It is submitted that the applicant/appellant is an illiterate woman and no person from her family is literate to an extent that they could understand the court proceedings therefore, the applicant/appellant had to rely upon her Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SARIKRAFA 138/2021 Page 2 of 14 advocate to guide her through the process, who failed to render appropriate advice.

7. It is submitted that considering the inability on the part of the applicant/appellant‟s previous counsel, she approached the present counsel to represent her case before this Court. The present counsel after his engagement, inspected the case files, procured the certified copies of the case and preferred the instant appeal without any more delay.

8. It is submitted that the delay in filing of the instant appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate rather the same has been preferred with a bona fide intention as the applicant/appellant has always appeared before this Court whenever she was summoned.

9. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the instant application for condonation of delay may be allowed and the delay may be condoned.

10. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the instant application submitting to the effect that the same is liable to be dismissed being filed at a belated stage.

11. It is submitted that the applicant/appellant by way of the instant application are merely abusing the process of law and have not ap