IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY] : DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE(EAST) cum ADDL. RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI MCA No.37/2012 Unique Case ID No.02402C0262422012 Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Shri Subhash Tandon R/o F4/35, Krishna Nagar, Delhi110051. Appellant Versus 1 Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Shri Sachin Satija R/o F2, Radheypuri, School Lane, Delhi110051. 2 Ms. [ENTITY] C1/9, Ground floor, Krishna Nagar, Delhi110051. Respondents Date of Institution : 13.09.2012 Date of order reserved : 12.02.2013 Date of order : 21.02.2013 MCA No.37/12 [ENTITY] vs. Smt. [ENTITY] etc. Page 1 of 7 O R D E R
By this order, I shall dispose of the application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for condonation of delay in filing of appeal by the appellant.
2 Trial Court record has been called. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record.
3 In the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that impugned order was passed on 21.05.2012 by Ld. ARC and thereafter summer vacations ensued and appellant contacted her counsel for getting certified copies of orders but due to non availability of sufficient money, she could not get the certified copies. It is also mentioned that certified copies were received in the month of July, 2012 and thereafter appellant suffered from jaundice and thus could not contact her counsel for preparation of the appeal. It is also mentioned appellant cured from jaundice in September, 2012, she then contacted her counsel and got the appeal prepared. It is mentioned that nonfiling of appeal within stipulated period was neither intentional nor willful but due to above bonafide reason. 4 In reply to the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that grounds for condonation of delay are concocted, no medical certificate has been annexed with the application by the appellant, hence, no bonafide reason has been shown to condone the delay. Dismissal of the application has been prayed for. 5 It has been contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant that impugned order was passed by court on 21.05.2012 and appellant has filed the present appeal on 12.09.2012. It is also argued that since appellant did not have money, she could not apply for certified copies of the order and thereafter she fell ill, therefore, appeal could not be filed in time. It is argued that delay in filing of appeal was neither intentional nor willful, therefore, same may be condoned. To press his contention, ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority reported as [PRECEDENT] in which it has been held that while dealing with application of condonation for delay, Courts should adopt liberal approach and reasons for adopting such approach should be stated. He has also relied upon another authority reported as [PRECEDENT] wherein it has been held that application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] should not be summarily decided and it should be done after allowing party to produce evidence. 6 On the other hand, ld counsel for the respondent has argued that ground of having no money in applying for certified copies is vague. As regards, suffering from jaundice, it is contended that since no medical document has been filed by the appellant, same can not be accepted to be a valid ground, hence, application may be dismissed.
7 Only two grounds have been taken by the appellant for condonation of delay. First ground is that appellant did not have sufficient money to obtain certified copies. The impugned order runs into mere 8 pages. Certified copies of impugned order hardly could have been obtained for payment not more than Rs.100/. It can not be expected in the present case that an ordinary person would not have an amount of Rs.100/. Hence, ground that appellant did not have sufficient money to obtain certified copy of the order is not tenable being vague. Hence, there is no force in the contention that appellant did not have any money to obtain certified copies of the order. 8 Second ground is that after receiving certified copies in the month of July, 2012, appellant suffered from jaundice as such she could not contact her lawyer for preparation of the appeal. First of all, she had not given the date of receipt of certified copy in the month of July. Secondly, she had not given the reasons as to how she arranged the money to obtain certified copies. She has not even given the date as to when she applied for certified copies. Moreso, she has not even filed medical documents on record to show the period of her ailment from jaundice. Therefore, second ground of appellant's suffering from jaundice also can not be believed.
9 I have gone through the ratio of judgment in case of [PRECEDENT], wherein it has been held that statutory provisions of the [ACT] mandates that application for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond prescribed period of limitation should be rejected unless sufficient cause was shown. It has also been held that there is no other justifiable reason except sufficient cause to condone the delay. It has also been held that when applicant fails to show any sufficient cause for condonation of delay, application does not survive and is liable to be dismissed. It is also a settled law that the person claiming the condonation of delay is required to explain the delay of each and every day caused in filing of the case.
10 Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that appellant may be given opportunity to lead evidence in support of her grounds for condonation of delay.
11 Since appellant has not been able to make any ground in support of her application for condonation of delay, what to say about proving the said fact by way of leading evidence. Appellant has not filed any medical document to support her contention that she was suffering from jaundice. Therefore, ratio of authorities relied upon by ld. Counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case, therefore, authorities relied upon by ld counsel for the appellant do not render any help to her. There is considerable delay in fling of the present appeal and onus to prove the sufficient cause for condonation of delay was on the appellant which she has failed to discharge. Therefore, grounds taken for condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal can not be said to be satisfactory. The appellant has failed to make out sufficient ground which prevented her in filing the present appeal within time. Resultantly, application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.
12 Trial court record be sent back to the concerned Court along with copy of the order. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( [ENTITY] ) Dated: 21.02.2013 District & Sessions Judge (East) Addl. Rent Control Tribunal Karkardooma Courts : Delhi