LPA 586/2010 Page 1 of 3 #73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 586/2010 SHRI HAZARI LAL & ANR. ..... Appellants Through Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Mathur and Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ANR. ..... Respondents Through None % Date of Decision : 17th August, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J CM 14689/2010 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. LPA 586/2010 & CMs 14688/2010 & 14690/2010 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 2nd July, 2010 by virtue of which the appellants’ writ petition being WP(C) 4347/2010 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine. 2. It is pertinent to mention that the writ petition had been filed challenging the order dated 14th May, 2010 passed by the Financial LPA 586/2010 Page 2 of 3 Commissioner allowing the revision petitions of respondent no. 2. As a consequence of the order dated 14th May, 2010, the delay in preferring the appeal by respondent no. 2 before the Deputy Commissioner/Revenue Assistant against the order dated 11th February, 1983 stood condoned. 3. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner/Revenue Assistant and the explanation given by the respondent no. 2 was concocted. 4. It is settled law that the power to condone delay is a discretionary power which has to be exercised in a judicious manner. It is equally well settled that in a writ petition filed under Article 226, the Court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the subordinate authority condoning the delay, unless it is shown that the exercise of the said discretion was either perverse or arbitrary or capricious. 5. In the present case, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the respondent no. 2 is challenging the orders of mutation in favour of appellants on the basis of a registered sale deed and letter of administration in favour of his deceased father. It was the case of respondent No. 2 that a copy of the Will and letter of administration were found amongst old papers during whitewashing of the house and immediately thereafter, respondent No. 2 had filed the appeal against the order dated 11th February, 1983 before the Deputy LPA 586/2010 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner/Revenue Assistant. 6. The Financial Commissioner has also found that the conduct of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, namely, sons of Shri Rattan Singh was fraudulent inasmuch as even though they were witnesses to the Will executed in favour of father of respondent no. 2, yet they had subsequently got the property mutated in their names and thereafter sold the same to the appellants. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the delay by respondent no. 2 in filing the appeal did not prejudice either the appellants or the sons of Shri Rattan Singh as the subsequent sale in favour of the appellants had been executed much prior even to the grant of letter of administration in favour of the respondent no. 2. In view of aforesaid, the present appeal and applications, being devoid of merit, are dismissed in limine. 7. At this stage, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul prays that the Deputy Commissioner/Revenue Assistant be directed to dispose of the appeal against the order dated 11th February, 1983 as expeditiously as possible. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we feel that this prayer is reasonable and accordingly, we direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 17, 2010/rn