Sanjay Singh vs Central Himalayan Land Development Co. ...

4. Thereafter, a statement of accounts was prepared by the respondent which reflected outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.5,13,850/- towards principal sum and interest amounting to Rs.3,61,460/-, the total being Rs.8,73,556/-. Soon thereafter, the respondent filed a Summary Suit for recovery of said amount of Rs.8,73,556/-. The Suit was registered as CS No.431/14/2008 on the file of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, New Delhi.

5. A Consumer Complaint was filed by the appellants being CC/110/2008 against the respondent submitting that though the outstanding amount was tendered by the appellants on 18.10.2007, the respondent refused to accept the same unless the principal sum was accompanied with interest @ 24% and that the project was not completed in time as a result of which the appellants were put to loss. It was prayed that the respondent be asked to deliver possession of villa along with all the facilities and accept the balance payment of Rs.5,13,850/-. The respondent contested the claim and submitted that the appellants never paid instalments as per schedule; that there was no delay on part of the respondent; and, therefore, the respondent was justified in demanding interest.

7. The Civil Suit filed by the respondent was dismissed by Additional District Judge-15 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi by his judgment and order dated 30.07.2014. The principal issue framed was whether the respondent was entitled to recovery of Rs.8,73,556/- as alleged? The case put up by the respondent was not accepted by the trial court and rejecting all the contentions of the respondent the suit was dismissed.

8. The respondent being aggrieved filed Regular First Appeal No.876 of 2016 in the High Court with an application to condone the delay of 721 days in filing said appeal. The explanation offered in support of condonation of delay was that the then advocate had not informed the respondent about the disposal of suit; that the respondent was, therefore, constrained to lodge a complaint against said advocate before the Bar Council of Delhi, which was pending adjudication and that the respondent ought not to suffer on account of the failure on part of their advocate. The appeal came up before the High Court on 16.04.2018. After going into the rival contentions, the High Court observed:

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1928 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO.24690 OF 2018) SANJAY SINGH AND ANR. VS. CENTRAL HIMALAYAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. 8

c) In terms of the order dated 23.05.2018 and as undertaken by the respondent, possession of the villa was made over to the appellants.

15. But, what is more striking is that the delay to the tune of 721 days was condoned by the High Court when there was no satisfactory explanation. In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1928 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO.24690 OF 2018) SANJAY SINGH AND ANR. VS. CENTRAL HIMALAYAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. 9 our view, there was gross negligence on part of the respondent and the explanation offered in support of the prayer for condonation does not appear to be correct. This is evident from the fact that no effective steps were taken to pursue the complaint which was lodged against the then advocate. In the petition for special leave, it was asserted that the complaint against the Advocate was not being proceeded with and the respondent had remained absent on the relevant date. Said assertion was not answered satisfactorily in the affidavit in reply filed in this Court. Taking totality of the circumstances, in our view the delay ought not to have been condoned by the High Court. We, therefore, accept the submission of the appellants and set aside the order condoning delay. Consequently, the First Appeal also stands dismissed.

16. However, considering the developments that have taken place while the appeal was pending in the High Court, we pass following directions:-

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1928 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) NO.24690 OF 2018) SANJAY SINGH AND ANR. VS. CENTRAL HIMALAYAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. 10

b) The amount of Rs.5,13,850/- deposited by the appellants in the Registry of the High Court which stands converted into a Fixed Deposit Receipt, upon maturity shall be made over to the respondent along with interest accrued thereon.

c) The pending appeal before the State Commission shall be dealt with on its own merits.

17. With the aforesaid directions this appeal is allowed. No costs.