Baldev Singh & Ors v. Ram Chander & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 5, 2020 'gsr'/pp

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 5th May, 2020 + RSA No.242/2005. BALDEV SINGH & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Manish Makhija & Mr. Kailash Pandey, Advs. Versus RAM CHANDER & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Keshav Dayal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Geeta Mehrotra, Advs. for 4(i) and 4(ii). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 22nd March, 2004 of the Court of Shri O.P. Gupta, Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in RCA No.25/1993 (Old No.150/82)] allowing the Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree [dated 22nd July, 1982 of the Court of Shri S.K. Tandon, Sub-Judge, First Class in Suit No.1166/1972 (filed in the year 1969)] of dismissal of the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for ejectment of the appellants/defendants from immovable property, and axiomatically passing a decree in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and against the appellants/defendants of ejectment of the appellants/defendants from plots no.2 to 6 and 8 to 10 along with superstructure thereon, as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW4/1, situated in Khasra No.71, Village Humayunpur, Delhi. 2. This appeal along with an application for condonation of delay in filing thereof came up first before this Court on 29th August, 2005 when, without considering whether the appeal entailed any substantial question of law, which is the sine qua non for entertaining or admitting a Second Appeal, notice of the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal was issued. Vide subsequent order dated 31st January, 2006, the execution proceedings were stayed. 3. Before even the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal could be considered, applications for substitution of legal representatives of the parties to the appeal and an application for impleadment as a party to the appeal came to be filed and which delayed adjudication even of the aspect of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Finally, vide order dated 25th November, 2016, the delay in filing and re-filing this appeal was condoned and the appeal listed for consideration. However, applications continued to be filed, and on none of the subsequent dates also, notice of the appeal was issued or it was recorded that this Second Appeal entailed any substantial question of law. However the counsel/s for some of the respondents/plaintiffs, to whom notice of applications were issued, have been appearing. 4. The appeal at that stage came up before the undersigned on 10th July, 2018 when counsel for the appellants/defendants and the senior counsel for the respondents no.4(i) and 4(ii)/plaintiffs appeared; none appeared for any of the other respondents/plaintiffs. The counsels were heard at length on that date and substantial part of this judgment also dictated in open Court on that date. However on request of the senior counsel for the respondents no.4(i) and 4(ii)/plaintiffs that he wanted to address further arguments, the matter was adjourned to the next day, recording that judgment already dictated shall be finalized after completion of the hearing. On the next day i.e 11th July, 2018 the counsel for the respondents no.4(i) and 4(ii)/plaintiffs stated that she wanted to argue further at length on facts and the senior counsel will argue further on the legal aspects only and the counsels were heard further but due to paucity of time the further hearing adjourned to 12th July, 2018. On 12th July, 2018 the matter was taken up at the fag end of the day and though hearing could be completed but judgment already dictated on 10th July, 2018 could not be finalized and the file was sent to the Chamber for finalizing the judgment and which remained to be done and this judgment is being pronounced now. 5. The suit, from which this appeal arises, w