V' * HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 228/2007 & CM 11818/2008 Date of decision : July 24, 2009 SEEMA KUMAR Appellant Through : Mr. Mohit Chadha, proxy counsel Versus SATISH MIGLANI Respondents Through : Mr. Arun Vohar, Advocate % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH (1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? JUDGMENT ARUNA SURESH. I. (Oral) 1. Appellant (plaintiff) had filed a suit for possession and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits/damages against the respondent (defendant). The respondent was allegedly RSA 228/2007 Page lof7 Signing Date:24.07.2024 17:12:49 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified inducted as a tenant by tine appellant on 1.5.1998 on monthly rent of Rs.4500/-. After the lease expired by efflux of time, the said suit was filed. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.2005. 2. Against the said judgment and decree, the appellant filed a regular civil appeal being RCA No.33/2005 before the Additional District Judge along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Vide its detailed order dated 27.2.2007, the appellate court was pleased to dismiss the application holding that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Since the appeal was found to be barred by period of limitation, the same was accordingly dismissed by the same order. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that general power of attorney holder of the appellant Sh. K.C. Khanna was admitted in the hospital from 5.6.2005 to 9.6.2005 and when he again went to the hospital on 6.7.2005 and on RSA 228/2007 Page 2 of 7 25.7.2005, he was advised bed rest for a period of three weeks. It was only thereafter he could contact his counsel on 16.8.2005 and gave him instructions for filing the appeal. 4. These submissions have been refuted by the counsel for the respondent. He has submitted that once the period of limitation started running against the appellant, no disability or inability to institute the appeal could stop it. In the present case, the copy of the judgment was applied for on 2.7.2005 when the courts reopened after summer vacations and not immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment. 5. The trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant on 16.5.2005. The period of limitation for filing an appeal is thirty days from the date of the judgment. By virtue of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, appellant was entitled to exclude the period taken for the preparation of the certified copy i.e. from the date it was applied and when it was made ready to be delivered. Appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial court on RSA 228/2007 Page 3 of 7 2.7.2005. When this application was filed, the period of limitation for filing the appeal had already expired. Therefore, the appellate court was right in holding that no benefit under Section 12 of the Limitation Act was available to the appellant as he applied for certified copy after the expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal. 6. In Riasat All v. Syeeda Begum - 90 (2001) DLT 112, this Court was pleased to observe that there is no provision which allows litigant to apply for certified copy on reopening day and get remission from commencement of remaining time for vacation period. 7. The attorney of the appellant is her father, who was stated to be unwell and remained in the hospital from 5.6.2005 to 9.6.2005. Thereafter, he allegedly had been visiting the hospital on different dates. It was only on 25.7.2005 that he was advised three weeks complete bed rest. Thereafter on 16.8.2005 the appeal along with the application was filed before the first appellate court. 8. One of the documents placed on record by the RSA 228/2007 Page 4 of 7 l5 appellant is general power of attorney executed by her in favour of Sh. Anil Bedi whereby she nominated him as her lawful and true general attorney in respect of the property in dispute. This power of attorney was executed on 23.7.2005. It was attested by the notary public on the same day. Under these circumstances, when another general power of attorney was executed in favour of Sh. Anil Bedi, the plea that Sh. K.C. Khanna was advised three weeks complete bed rest on the medical prescription dated 25.7.2005 i.e. after the execution of the fresh power of attorney in favour of Anil Bedi and that he could not contact his counsel for three weeks, loses its significance and therefore, cannot be considered as a valid ground or, a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. 9. The other document is the discharge summary issued by Jessa Ram Hospital. According to this document, the patient remained in the hospital from 5.6.2005 to 9.6.2005. It is pertinent to mention here that name of the patient, his age etc. RSA 228/2007 Page 5 of 7 do not find mention in this discharge summary, though, the name of the Doctor is there. Under these circumstances, to connect this document with Sh. K.C. Khanna would not be appropriate. 10. The next document placed on the record is a medical document issued by Jessa Ram Hospital dated 25.7.2005. Sh. K.C. Khanna was treated as an OPD patient on that day and was advised bed rest for three weeks. However, the signatures of Sh. K.C. Khanna do not appear on this document and therefore, authenticity of this document also becomes doubtful. 11. It is significant that the appellant was in town throughout the period and she could have herself signed the appeal but for the reasons known to her, she did not do it. She waited for Sh. K.C. Khanna to recover from his sickness to contact the lawyer and file the appeal. It seems that all these causes have been created by the appellant with a view to seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 12. Hence, I conclude that no substantial question of law can be formulated in this appeal as the RSA 228/2007 Page 6 of 7 application and the appeal were dismissed by the appellate court on the basis of averments made by the appellant in the application and the appeal and documents placed on record to support the said averments. 13. Therefore, I find no merits in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. V ^ (ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE July 24, 2009 jk RSA228/2007 Page 7of 7 I'