M/S V R Finsec Pvt Ltd v. State Bank of India

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

SEPTEMBER 07, 2018 'pp'..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 7th September, 2018. + RSA 126/2018, CM No.36437/2018 (for stay) & CM No.36439/2018 (for condonation of 68 days delay in refiling the appeal). V R FINSEC PVT LTD. .... Appellant Through: Mr. A.P. Dhamija and Mr. J.P. Singh, Advs. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.36438/2018 (for exemption). 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. RSA 126/2018, CM No.36437/2018 (for stay) & CM No.36439/2018 (for condonation of 68 days delay in refiling the appeal). 3. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 19th March, 2018 in RCA No.14/17 (Case No.1559/17) of the Court of the Additional District Judge-02 (Central)] allowing the first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against the judgment and decree [dated 21st March, 2017 in CS No.1207/2014 of the Court of Civil Judge-04, Tis Hazari Court] of dismissal of the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. 4. I have perused the relevant copies of the record of the Suit Court and the First Appellate Court filed with the memorandum of appeal and heard the counsel for the appellant/defendant. 5. The respondent/plaintiff State Bank of India instituted the suit, from which this appeal arises, under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of Rs.2,00,583/- from the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant applied for leave to defend but the said application was dismissed on merits by the Suit Court and a money decree passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. However in first appeal thereagainst being preferred by the appellant/defendant, the said money decree was set aside, the appellant/defendant granted leave to defend subject to deposit of the decretal amount, and the suit remanded for trial. 6. The respondent/plaintiff failed to lead any evidence in the suit and which resulted in the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff being closed and in the absence of any evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, the suit, vide judgment dated 10th March, 2016, was dismissed. 7. The respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit and which appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 3rd March, 2017 of the learned Additional District Judge and the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit was set aside and the parties directed to appear before the Suit Court with a direction to the Suit Court to, subject to payment of costs by the respondent/plaintiff, grant only one opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to complete its evidence. 8. The Suit Court however, vide order dated 21st March, 2017 supra, recording, that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to pay the costs within the prescribed time and had also again failed to lead evidence, closed the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff and consequently dismissed the suit. 9. Against the aforesaid dismissal of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed First Appeal, from judgment wherein this Second Appeal arises. The learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned judgment has held, that though the respondent/plaintiff was at fault, but had paid the costs, though after a delay of few days and has remanded the suit to the Suit Court to grant another opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to lead evidence subject to costs. 10. This appeal has been preferred, after more than six months from the date of the impugned judgment, and is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay of 68 days in re-filing thereof. The only ground pleaded for condonation of delay is, that the appellant/defendant was not possessed of legible copies of the documents and took time in arranging the same. The same does not constitute a sufficient cause and rather shows the lackadaisical attitude of the appellant/defendant also in