*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

RFA 293/2021, CM APPLs. 26906/2021 & 26908/2021

SH. DINESH SHARMA

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Rajiv Raheja, Adv.

versus

MRS. KRISHNA KAINTH

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ravi Dev Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM No. 26908/2021 (by the appellant for condonation of 81 days delay)

This is an application under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking

condonation of 81 days delay in the refilling of the present Regular First

Appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 81 days in

refilling the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.

RFA 293/2021

1.

The present appeal has been filed with the following prayers:

that this Hon‟ble Court may be graciously pleased to:

„Krishna Kainth Vs. Dinesh Sharma‟.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001454

the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2.

It is a case wherein according to facts stated in Civil Suit No.

532/2019 (for short, ‘CS No. 532/2019’), the respondent / plaintiff is the

owner of the property bearing House No. 37, Second Floor, Block F, Gali

No.12, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (for short, ‘Suit Property’).

3.

In the month of November 2016, the appellant / defendant approached

the husband of the respondent / plaintiff for the purpose of acquiring the suit

property on rent. The respondent / plaintiff agreed to give the said property

on lease to the appellant / defendant at a monthly rent of ₹9200/- per month

exclusive of electricity charges from the month of November 2016.

4.

The appellant / defendant initially paid the rent on time, however,

after a few months started delaying rent payments, and on being asked about

such delay the appellant / defendant did not give any satisfactory answer.

The appellant / defendant lastly paid the rent for February 2018 on March

07, 2018. Furthermore, it is alleged that the appellant / defendant never paid

the electricity bill raised by BSES, and due to the non-payment of the

electricity bills, the concerned authority had disconnected the electricity

connection in the suit property.

5.

The appellant / defendant filed his written statement in CS No.

532/2019 wherein he stated that the suit property was let out to him and for

security / mortgage purposes he has paid an amount of ₹5,00,000/- to the

respondent / plaintiff. It is further submitted that the respondent / plaintiff

had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant / defendant for a total

consideration of ₹13,00,000/-. However, the mortgage documents and other

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001454

documents were stolen from the custody of the appellant / defendant on

April 14, 2019, meaning thereby that there were some documents executed

by the respondent / plaintiff.

6.

It is the contention of Mr. Rajiv Raheja, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant / defendant that the Trial Court had listed the matter

on arguments, without the filing of a formal application by the respondent /

plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for

short, ‘CPC’).

7.

That apart, it is his contention that the Trial Court erred in passing the

judgment / order by failing to appreciate that there are disputed questions of

facts involved in the matter and the same cannot be decided without a trial.

8.

Mr. Raheja submitted that the Trial Court in paragraph 12 of the

impugned judgment observed that: “From the averments in the written

property on 05/05/2012”. In this regard, he contended that the said

observation of the Trial Court clearly depicts that the Trial Court was not

even sure what is the status of the appellant / defendant in the suit property

and thus it cannot be said that there is an ‘admission’ on the basis of which

the judgment and decree could have been passed.

9.

That apart, the Trial C