Sanjay Kumar Goel v. M/S Pradeep Phosphates Ltd

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 21, 2018 bs

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21st August, 2018. + SANJAY KUMAR GOEL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pawan K. Behl, Adv. Versus PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.11509/2018 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. RSA 48/2018 & CMs No.11510/2018 & 11511/2018 (for condonation of 168 days delay in filing and 45 days in re-filing the appeal respectively) 3. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 17th April, 2017 in RCA No.61395/2016 (Old No.05/2010) of the Court of Additional District Judge-06 (Central)] of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree [dated 12th July, 2010 in Suit No.1107/06/96 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Central)] in a suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,19,960/- jointly and severally from the respondent/defendant as well as from six others. 4. This appeal came up first before this Court on 23rd March, 2018 and has thereafter been adjourned from time to time on the request of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. 5. The appeal is accompanied with applications for condonation of delay of 168 days in filing and 45 days in re-filing thereof. However, the question of considering the grounds for condonation of delay would arise only if on merits there were to be any need to entertain this Regular Second Appeal, the sine qua non for entertaining which is, whether it raises a substantial question of law. 6. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has been heard and the copies of the Trial Court record annexed perused. 7. The judgment of the Suit Court shows the same to have been passed, besides the respondent/defendant, against the other six defendants also, against all of whom the suit was filed. However, the judgment of the First Appellate Court shows the respondent/defendant as the sole respondent in the appeal. 8. I have enquired from the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, as to what happened to the other respondents/defendants who were parties to the suit. 9. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has drawn attention to the findings of the Suit Court under Issue No.5, recording that, (i) the suit stood dismissed against defendants No.2&3 Union of India; (ii) the defendant No.4 was the Managing Director of the respondent/defendant; (iii) the defendant No.5 Government of Nauru had already been dropped; (iv) the defendants No.6&7 A.K. Aggarwal and S. Shivramkrishnan were employees of the respondent/defendant and were proper parties to the suit. 10. It is thus quite obvious that in the suit, besides the respondent/defendant, the Managing Director of the respondent/defendant and A.K. Aggarwal and S. Shivramkrishnan, employees of the respondent/defendant, were parties. There is no explanation as to why they were not impleaded in the First Appeal or have not been impleaded in this Regular Second Appeal. 11. All parties to a suit are necessary parties to appeals arising therefrom and this appeal is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. 12. A reading of the judgment of the Suit Court shows the same to be a typed copy and probably not compared with the original. 13. This is yet another lacuna in this appeal. 14. The Suit Court, on the basis of evidence led, passed a decree in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and against the respondent/defendant and the other defendants who have not been impleaded as parties to this appeal, of recovery of Rs.5,290/- and amount of NSC of face value of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 10% from the date of termination of contract from January, 1991 and 31st March, 1990 respectively, till date of realisation. It was further held that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to prove the claim for the remaining amount. 15. The First Appellate Court has