Delhi District Court
Tata Motors Finance Ltd vs Parveen Chaudhary & Others on 24 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
M. No.37/15
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0137692015
Tata Motors Finance Ltd. ... Applicant/DH
Versus
Parveen Chaudhary & Others ... Respondents/JDs
ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING RESTORATION APPLICATION OF THE EXECUTION PETITION.
Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant/DH for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application of execution petition. It is mentioned in the application that execution petition of the applicant was dismissed on 05.12.2014. DH/applicant has filed the restoration application on 21.04.2015. It is mentioned that application for restoration could not be filed within limitation period of 30 days because the Panel Advocate of the applicant had suddenly left the services of the law M.No. 37/15 Tata Motors Fin. Ltd. vs. Parveen Chaudhary Page 1 of 3 Firm (CFR Law Associates). It is mentioned that JD has also raised an objection that DH has moved restoration application under wrong provision, which is under Order IX Rule 4 CPC instead of under Order XXI Rule 106 (3) CPC. It is submitted that mere non mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision in an application is not a ground to reject an application as held in "Challamana Huchhha Gowda s. Mr Tirumala" (2004) SCC 453. It is mentioned that delay of 106 days was neither intentional nor deliberate. It is prayed that delay may be condoned in allowing the restoration application.
2 Notice of the application was issued to JDs/non applicants. Reply has been filed alleging therein that limitation for filing restoration application is 30 days as per Order XXI Rule 106 CPC. No particulars of the Advocate, who had been looking after the execution petition and who left the job, have been given in the application, therefore, a general and vague ground is taken. Dismissal of the application has been prayed for.
3 There is no dispute to the legal preposition that mere nonmentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision is not a ground to reject an application as held in Challamana Huchha M.No. 37/15 Tata Motors Fin. Ltd. vs. Parveen Chaudhary Page 2 of 3 Gowda (supra). However, according to Order XXI Rule 106 CPC, limitation for moving application for restoration of execution petition is 30 days. In Damodaran Pillai vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 3460, it has been held that restoration application must be filed within 30 days from the date of order of dismissal and not from the date of knowledge of the order.
4 Admittedly present application has not been filed within 30 days as execution petition was dismissed in default on 05.12.2014 and restoration application was filed on 21.04.2015. Moreover, no particulars of the person/Advocate, who left the job and who was looking after the execution petition, have been given. In the absence of such details, I am of the view that no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for condonation of delay. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, restoration application also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court ( TALWANT SINGH )
Dated: 24.09.2015 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
M.No. 37/15 Tata Motors Fin. Ltd. vs. Parveen Chaudhary Page 3 of 3