Delhi District Court
Manovikas Charitable Society vs Kesar Baid on 27 November, 2013
In the Court of Pawan Kumar Matto,
Additional District Judge03 (East),
Karkardooma Court, Delhi
RCA No.30/2012
In the matter of :
Manovikas Charitable Society .....Appellant
Versus
Kesar Baid .....Respondent
O R D E R
1. This order of mine will dispose off two applications filed by the appellant U/s 151 CPC , vide which the appellant has prayed for taking on record the decree sheet and another application U/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, vide which, the appellant has prayed for condonation of delay in filing of the application u/s 151 of CPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed the present appeal on dated 27.4.2012 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.3.2012.
3. On dated 5.1.2013, the appellant has filed the application u/s 151 of CPC, on the averments that inadvertently at the time of filing of the appeal, the appellant could not file the certified copy of the decree alongwith the RCANo30/2012 Manovikas Charitable Society vs Kesar Baid 1 of 5 certified copy of the impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2012 and further stated that the copy of the decree was not supplied by the copying agency alongwith the certified copy of impugned judgment and prayed for taking the certified copy of the decree dated 21.3.2012 on record and further stated that if the application is not allowed the appellant will suffer an irreparable loss.
4. The appellant has also filed an other application u/s 5 of the limitation act for seeking condonation of delay in filing of the application u/s 151 CPC and stated that the delay in filing the application u/s 151 of CPC is not deliberate and prayed for condoning the delay in filing of the application u/s 151 of CPC.
5. On the other hand, the respondent has not filed replies to the said applications and the ld.counsel for the respondent has straightway argued on the said applications.
6. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that due to some inadvertence, the appellant could not file the decree sheet at the time of filing of the present appeal and copy of decree sheet was applied on 17.11.12 and same was received on 03.12.12 and the present applications have been RCANo30/2012 Manovikas Charitable Society vs Kesar Baid 2 of 5 filed on 05.01.13 and submitted that non filing of the decree sheet with the appeal was neither intentional nor willful and prayed for allowing application U/s 151 CPC and also prayed for condonation of delay in filing of the same, as the certified copy of the impugned judgment was already filed by the appellant alongwith appeal.
8. Whereas, the Ld. counsel for the respondent has submitted that present appeal was filed on dated 27.4.2012 and when the counsel for the respondent had pointed out that the certified copy of the decree sheet has not been filed, only then, the appellant had applied for certified copy of the decree sheet on 17.11.12 and same was received on 03.12.12, but, despite of receiving of the same on 03.12.12, the appellant has failed to file the same on the record soon after receiving of the same, and the decree sheet has been filed in this court on 05.01.13 without showing any sufficient cause for such delay and submitted that application U/s 151 CPC, as well as, another application U/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act are liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merit, as the appellant is opting dilatory tactics.
9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record. RCANo30/2012 Manovikas Charitable Society vs Kesar Baid 3 of 5
10. Perusal of the record shows that the appellant has filed the present appeal on 27.04.12, but, it has failed to file the decree sheet under appeal and from the perusal of para no.2 of the application u/s 151 CPC it is clear that the appellant has impleaded therein that copy of the decree sheet was not supplied by the copying agency alongwith the judgment but the appellant has failed to bring on record any documentary proof that certified copy of the decree was applied with the copy of judgment. From the perusal of the record it is clear that the certified copy of the decree sheet was applied on 17.11.12 same was received on 03.12.12, but, despite of receiving of the same, the appellant has failed to file the same soon thereafter and the appellant has filed the application under consideration on 05.01.13. The appellant has failed to explain any sufficient cause for non filing of the same with the appeal, whereas, it was incumbent on the part of the appellant to file decree sheet alongwith present appeal and the appellant has failed to explain any good reason for non filing of the same between 03.12.12 to 04.01.13, as from the perusal of the record, it is clear that certified copy of the decree sheet was received by the appellant on 03.12.12 and the same has been filed in the court on 05.01.13, thus, from the perusal of the record, it is RCANo30/2012 Manovikas Charitable Society vs Kesar Baid 4 of 5 clear that appellant is a negligent person and its approach is lackadaisical, but, as this court is of the considered view that filing of the certified copy of decree sheet is essential for the proper adjudication of the appeal, so, keeping in mind imperativeness of this document and negligent conduct of the appellant on record, delay in filing of the application U/s 151 CPC stands condoned off and the application U/s 151 CPC also stands allowed, but, subject to the cost of Rs. 2000/ to be given to the respondent.
11. In the above said terms, both the applications filed by the appellant U/s 151 CPC and another application U/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, stand disposed off. Announced in the open Court on:27.11.2013 ( Pawan Kumar Matto ) Additional District Judge03 (East)/KKD/Delhi RCANo30/2012 Manovikas Charitable Society vs Kesar Baid 5 of 5 RCANo30/2012 Manovikas Charitable Society vs Kesar Baid 6 of 5